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
- - - - -

David Lean's Summertime Blu Ray available at Amazon Japan


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

#21 of 66 OFFLINE   Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor



  • 839 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted June 15 2012 - 11:29 AM

Not sure that Mr. Wood's work is the sort of thing that one worries too much about fine points like composition.


And I guess that's where you and I differ.

#22 of 66 OFFLINE   Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor



  • 839 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted June 15 2012 - 11:31 AM

That headroom includes scenes of Venice!


There's interesting-looking stuff outside of the intended picture area on prints of almost every movie. So what?

#23 of 66 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter



  • 2,642 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted June 15 2012 - 11:33 AM

That headroom includes scenes of Venice!


Very true , but I imagine that Hildyard's camera had a ground glass in it with very clear frame markings for 1.85 so that he could make sure it looked as he & Lean wanted it to look.
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#24 of 66 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,739 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted June 15 2012 - 11:39 AM

"Intended composition" is something of a misnomer.

Many of these films were shot to in fact be ambiguous WRT the intended aspect ratio.


That is simply not true. These films had a very specific intended aspect ratio and that's what the director and DP were composing for. That's why trade magazines and reel bands on the print had the aspect ratio listed so the conscientious operator would honor the filmmakers' intent.

With VistaVision, Paramount was offering exhibitors the option of giving their patrons the largest image possible, based on their existing screen. While 2.00:1 was an option, they recommended 1.85:1 in all of their promotional literature. Superscope was the same.

http://www.hometheat.../400/height/225

http://www.hometheat...h/600/height/56

http://www.hometheat.../600/height/438


Robert, it sounds like in the 1970's, you were running in the ratio which you personally liked best. I do not agree with that approach.



I imagine that Hildyard's camera had a ground glass in it with very clear frame markings for 1.85 so that he could make sure it looked as he & Lean wanted it to look.


The view-finder on a standard Mitchell camera would have looked something like this:

http://www.hometheat.../600/height/538

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#25 of 66 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 7,688 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted June 15 2012 - 03:05 PM

There are so many films for which the intended (filmed and protected) aspect ratio is obvious upon screening.   There are others that are protected to 1.37, but look ridiculous at that ratio.   There is a reason why prints, in many cases were not protected, and it involved contrast build-up.  In order to mask a dupe negative to whatever wide ratio, the process goes through an optical camera, which is why all original prints of a little film entitled E.T. are full frame,  with instructions to project at 1.85.   35mm prints of The Godfather are 1.37, but that, also, was meant to be projected at 1.85.  Project full frame and you end up with place marks on visible on the floor.   This could not be more simple.  The ground glass used during image capture was set for the desired ratio, protecting (in some cases) for the entire frame.   There are a handful of films meant to be screened at 1.37 from the last three decades or so (One from the Heart comes to mind), but virtually everything was created to be viewed at 1.66 and wider.   Why is this so difficult to understand?   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


#26 of 66 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,739 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted June 15 2012 - 03:25 PM

Unfortunately, 50 plus years of 1.37:1 viewings, both on television and theatrically, have taken their toll.

And some people will simply not accept the information which conflicts with their opinion. I've had people insist, based on TV and repertory screenings, that A HARD DAY'S NIGHT is 1.37:1. I present the following frame scan from the original leader and they still refuse to believe the documentation.

http://www.hometheat.../600/height/568

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#27 of 66 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,739 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted May 08 2013 - 09:01 PM

From Variety: June 16, 1954
 

 

Posted Image

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Summertime widescreen.JPG

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#28 of 66 ONLINE   Dick

Dick

    Producer



  • 4,323 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted May 08 2013 - 09:14 PM

I would be surprised if, within a year or two,  Criterion didn't give us a second David Lean set including this, OLIVER TWIST, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, and HOBSON'S CHOICE.



#29 of 66 OFFLINE   Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer



  • 11,848 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted May 09 2013 - 04:44 AM

I would be surprised if, within a year or two,  Criterion didn't give us a second David Lean set including this, OLIVER TWIST, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, and HOBSON'S CHOICE.

 

There would be considerable rejoicing from this corner if that were to be true. I love all of those films.



#30 of 66 OFFLINE   Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor



  • 839 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted May 09 2013 - 05:39 AM

I would be surprised if, within a year or two,  Criterion didn't give us a second David Lean set including this, OLIVER TWIST, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, and HOBSON'S CHOICE.

 

The line starts behind me.



#31 of 66 OFFLINE   David Weicker

David Weicker

    Screenwriter



  • 1,711 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2005
  • Real Name:David

Posted May 09 2013 - 05:54 AM

It's funny, but wasn't there a similar discussion about Aspect Ratios in the Shane thread. And weren't many of the same posters here arguing about ignoring these same 'clear instructions' to the projectionists

#32 of 66 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,331 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted May 09 2013 - 07:08 AM

It's all very interesting.

 

The title card (as presented on Criterion's SD DVD) just survives a crop to 1.85:1.  By 'just' I actually mean 'diesn't quite' as a tiny bit of the 'P' in 'Production' is clipped off the top, whilst a tiny bit of the 'P' in 'COPYWRITE' is clipped at the bottom.

 

Of course, this may be slightly zoomboxed, but I'd still not expect the titles to be pushed that far to the absolute limit.

 

1.66:1 maybe?  Whatever, if there wee any matte it's have to be dead centre.

 

I've not seen the film in a while, so someone with more of a working knowledge might want to chip in.  There a shot on flickriver.com I can see on a Google image search, showing AH looking at some bright red shoes.  I can see it at the search results, but can't access it as I'm at work.  If you search in Google for 'summertime david lean flickriver' you'll find it.

 

Any crop at all pretty much destroys it.

 

Just to be clear, I'm only going from this cap, so the usual caveats apply.  As I've said, if someone actually has the DVD they might want to check it out.  The caps may be inaccurate, the DVD excessively zoomboxed (doubt it with it being Criterion), but it'd be interesting to see, nontheless.

 

Steve W

 

EDIT:  Check out YouTube - I won't post a direct link.  Search 'SUMMERTIME (Tempo d'Estate)' (it's a foreign language print).  There's the first 20 minutes or so of the film in two parts, roughly 10 minutes each.

 

Look at the first one at the opening titles 1:11 in.  See what you think.  Of course, the titles are in Italian, and it might be they wanted a different ratio there. Again, anyone with the DVD will be able to help.

 

SW


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#33 of 66 ONLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted May 09 2013 - 08:02 AM

Criterion or no Criterion, a DVD from 1998 (!), using the same transfer made for a laserdisc (from 1991!!) is likely going to be zoomed and manipulated in some way. Blu-ray caps here:

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.../summertime.htm

 

Look at the bottom or right side of any of the caps. 



#34 of 66 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,331 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted May 09 2013 - 08:46 AM

Criterion or no Criterion, a DVD from 1998 (!), using the same transfer made for a laserdisc (from 1991!!) is likely going to be zoomed and manipulated in some way. Blu-ray caps here:

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.../summertime.htm

 

Look at the bottom or right side of any of the caps. 

 

Yes, you're right.

 

But I think this one would have to be zoomboxed by...a substantial amount.

 

Posted Image

 

Even trying to imagine that as zoomboxed - what would they have had to do?

 

I've looked at the portion on YouTube and it is indeed zoomboxed compared to the image on the Blu-ray (though to a relatively similar amount as the Criterion).

 

But you'd have to take that image and imagine acres of cropped space at both the top and bottom of the image to make it fit.

 

As I say, it'd be interesting to hear from anyone with the DVD to see what the English titles look like.  I'm not trying to make a definitive point here, but that title card certainly asks some questions.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#35 of 66 OFFLINE   Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter



  • 1,899 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted May 09 2013 - 08:57 AM

 

 

As I say, it'd be interesting to hear from anyone with the DVD to see what the English titles look like.  I'm not trying to make a definitive point here, but that title card certainly asks some questions.

 

Steve W

 

 

I rented the UK DVD a few weeks ago and there's bags of empty space at top and bottom of the titles.


Edited by Douglas R, May 09 2013 - 08:57 AM.


#36 of 66 ONLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted May 09 2013 - 09:10 AM

Same card, from the English language release, taken from Criterion's Hulu:

 

http://i.imgur.com/gk3gqmS.jpg

 

Was you really expecting it to be like the Italian card?  :P



#37 of 66 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,331 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted May 09 2013 - 09:45 AM

Same card, from the English language release, taken from Criterion's Hulu:

 

http://i.imgur.com/gk3gqmS.jpg

 

Was you really expecting it to be like the Italian card?  :P

 

 

Frankly, I didn't know what to expect.

 

Which is, of course, why I asked the question.

 

I'm home now - here's that 'shoes' shot:

 

http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

 

Steve W


Edited by Yorkshire, May 09 2013 - 09:56 AM.

Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#38 of 66 ONLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted May 09 2013 - 09:58 AM

Sorry, all I meant was, it would be ridiculous for anyone to argue for a widescreen version of Summertime if the (English) credits were composed like they are in the image you posted. It would be open and shut 1.37:1! We're not insane, after all.



#39 of 66 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,331 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted May 09 2013 - 10:20 AM

Sorry, all I meant was, it would be ridiculous for anyone to argue for a widescreen version of Summertime if the (English) credits were composed like they are in the image you posted. It would be open and shut 1.37:1! We're not insane, after all.

 

Agreed.  Nonetheless, the Italian titles remain interesting.  The cap you posted of the English titles would be better.  But if you crop those to 1.85:1 you get them jammed up against the top of the frame with loads of space below.  1.66:1 looks better.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#40 of 66 ONLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted May 09 2013 - 10:27 AM

The cap is from Criterion, presumably the same transfer found on the zoomed DVD. I have no doubt a properly transferred Summertime would like fine at 1.85:1, though I wouldn't lose any sleep over 1.78:1 or 1.66:1, once they get around to upgrading it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users