Search results

That really should be,make up your own mind.

Yes thank you gentlemen.This was the point I was trying to make.Nothing more nothing less. Again I would agree, to an extent.I think this spectacle was kind of beguiling.The audience was overtaken with the enlargement of everything.Brighter Projection systems and more highly reflective screens...

What I find strange in all of this talk about Aspect Ratio's.And I wish to point out this is an observation not a criticism. In general I tow the accepted line,and bow to Mr F's research that place's the whole of the 1950's conversion to Academy Widescreen in context. But why did the industry...

But this is also a scope 2.35 image from a super 35mm neg, so not a very reasonable comparison.Seems to me Cameron compose's the frame as he sees fit from one release to another. Leaving aside what Livius has alluded to,a 2.35 frame also requires you to get closer otherwise the sheer width of...

Say's what exactly? Like many on here I have seen COF more times that I can remember.Including the matted 1.77 version from Warner's. What I can appreciate is the greater feeling of compositional integrity in the 1.37 version than what I have seen before. I have seen selected scenes from the...

Sorry,your're not getting away with that. I have not seen the whole film,no,because I have'nt needed to. However I have viewed important elements where a clear compositional decision about what to include seem to have been made. Good film makers and cameraman (particularly when we think of...

A red herring I'm afraid.It's nothing more than a good cameraman centering the image.The tilting is so minimal,that any movement could not possibly be deemed to cater for a matte. And even if it did,it still does'nt determine 1.66 safe for academy,as the very big question of the deliberate...

I firmly and wholeheartedly agree.

True up to a point. A 1.33 and 1.66/1.85 AR present the film maker with certain realities of spacial awareness. A 1.33 frame tends to look more constricted and as tall as it is wide.So to maintain balance there is a tendency to include detail and information both above and below the central...

The progressive mounting evidence provided by Steve from Yorkshire has not been commented on. When I first saw the Academy presentation of COF,and read the Hammer blog I was more than convinced. Yorkshire simply confirmed,re-confirmed and then even made a aesthetic compositional comparison...

I did'nt say I wanted Bob Furmanek or Robert Harris to post.I said it was quite likely significant that they had't on this particular issue regarding the COF.This after all is about the COF ,although I am conscious of it being deemed the thin end of a wedge regarding the argument in respect of...

That's as good an argument I've heard. I to grew up with Hammer Horror.For me late Friday Nights ooze with nostalgia.And I suppose that's why I care. For me compromise has gone out of the window,as it seems the direct evidence and evidence supporting that evidence is ignored,lambasted and...

Nice try...but the film like the camera is something your stuck with.It is a very,very expensive commodity. For Terence Fisher to choose to compose for Academy would have cost them nothing at all. And would'nt a producer have made a comment about rushes the following morning if he felt there...

I am going to apologise in advance here.This is getting ridiculous,and just annoying. Steve has been very diplomatic and balanced in the responses to his compelling and highly convincing argument for COF being composed and conceived for the academy ratio of 1.37. First of all we all know that...

I have to say that Mr Yorkshire continues to prove his case again and again.Given the FST caps I think he has put a tin hat on it. If you argue that COF was composed by Mr Fisher and Mr Asher for 1.66 or even worse 1.77 then of course you MUST also argue that the same MUST be same for FST. I...

I,m not going to get involved in this "Aspect Ratio" research thread to any graet extent.Suffice to say quite ambivalently that I find it interminable and compelling at the same time. No I just wish to support Mr Yorkshire in his one man stand against what appears to be an overwhelming...

Well,just to add some balance here,I am more than delighted that Hammer have produced COF in academy and that DRO has had some dodgy effects soft touched to avoid a glaring assault on the senses that interupts the few sequences in question. And I am an avid Hammer fan who saw DRO at the cinema a...

If the top image really is the OCN or Interpositive/negative then count me in. I'm not doubting but,some re-assurance would be welcome.

Yes I've just made the same comparison.Had'nt noticed it before.With MS and LS the difference in detail appears fairly significant. From the discussion I'm not sure why this has to happen.Ad naseum I am one for OCN,so the whole issue of less of the frame is a fascinating one.What technical...

Reading a previous post by Robert Harris,did'nt they use different title credits for each format ie 35mm squeezed reduction prints and 70mm TODD-AO Prints.

Yes I am always a little surprised that the maximum available information on the OCN is not utilised.I hope to that we get a very broad sweep of the OCN,and not a selective extraction. You mention Jaws was from a print .Did'nt they go back to the OCN for that. I thought so,but still quite a lot...

My reference is the print shown in the TODD-AO section of TAWSM. There is slight ly less headroom and possibly a little loss at the bottom (although not positive about this).Certainly what's on the edges of the print is revealed on the Blu-ray,but there is such a small difference between 2.21...

Just wanted to balance things up a bit here. I appreciate it is almost sacreligious to mention anything on home theatre forum's that seems to contradict the notion of "what was shown in theatre's" but I am certainly more than pleased with the Airport Blu-ray.I am a proponent of having what's on...

Actaully that sounds rather superior.It does reveal an enourmous amount of information that clearly I did'nt know But in respect of the broad discussion of Aspect Ratios,much is not new or unfamiliar.That's a more acurate summary.

Oh dear...I have and it does'nt tell me anything I don't already know. Protecting for television was not a consideration at first I accept that.Afterall it was a response to television that gave us widescreen in the first place. Protecting for academy was however important, I did actually...

Who am I to quibble about artistic integrity. But I often wonder if Aspect Ratio is at the top of the pile when it comes to maintaining it.Cutting out scenes,re-editing,unauthorised inserts and musical appendums without director approval seem to me to be much higher on the list than AR In...

Fortunately I'm not. I am well aware that Films were shot open matte to account for individual abilities of theatres at the time,to project in anything from 1.37 to 1.85.Naturally there were recommended ratio's. It was also used to protect for Television. I'm not being contentious here.All...

I dis-agree with that to a point.I want whats on the negative.If it's open matte fine,if it's hard matted then you know the director was serious about what he wanted the audience to see.If it's open matte,then I can remove,if necessary, what I don't like.With anamorphic if you take everything on...

Thanks for your comments Stan. I suppose I have a general regard for the evil black bars.I can remember eagerly buying the first VHS widescreen releases,and black bars (the bigger they were the better) on playing them on a 4x3 CRT Television.Knowing that I was seeing more than the pan and scan...