Search results

Have it on pre-order, many thanks for the hard work Bob!

Found an interesting post from a few years ago regarding 1.75:1 from David Mullen ASC over at the cinematography.com boards: "Then I read an article in the British Cinematographer magazine of the late 1950's (at USC's archive) where a consensus of exhibitors and cameramen were favoring adopting...

Thanks Bob, that clears that one up. Rick

Much appreciated Mark! I thought that it was 1.75:1, but I'd be interested to see the 1.66:1 from iTunes, as at 1.33:1 there is some severe cropping going on (at least on the DVD). Rick

Actually Steve, if you release a film that should be 1.75:1 in 1.66:1, you DO NOT get the film the director intended. You seem to be promoting releasing films in full frame and then asking folks to mask/zoom to get the proper AR, which is an idea I don't see anyone but Hammer backing. Rick

I'm looking for an OAR for the 1968 Disney film Blackbeard's Ghost. I want to say it should be 1.75:1, but I haven't screened it since the mid-eighties (outside of the 1.33:1 DVD release), can anyone confirm or set me straight please? Rick

LOL, I definitely agree Ben, much too late for maths.

Nice job there, was playing around with combining them, but will gladly let someone else do the work lol. Just for fun, here are some from another 16mm: Rick

Found an interesting comparison in regards to Dracula... BFI Restoration trailer 16mm print

This nouveau Hammer is simply mind-boggling... Hopefully some U.S. distributors will remedy these botched transfers, and in their proper aspect ratios. Their response to both concerns and criticisms are also often obtuse and flippant, very unprofessional. On a related note, their YouTube showing...

I wasn't arguing that the frame should be lowered, I was stating that there was ample headspace for a 1.66, and that looks right, and that the 1.37 has too much negative space. I also think that following the scene to the end, the 1.66 looks just fine. Further, if you're arguing that the ample...

You've taken much more than the 1.66 should (and has) off the tops there, that's why that is absolutely wrong. Rick

That's the one.

Try approx 20:31

Ok, I know why we can't hit the same timestamp, I'm not using my BD player atm, just referencing the DVD version.

It doesn't start on a chapter stop, the timecode of the specific scene starts at 19:50.

Right off the top of my head, the scene I consider a good example of very roomy headspace, starts at approx. 19:50.

I agree with you, the first part of the films looks right at 1.66, there is cavernous headroom in some shots that would easily accommodate a 1.85, the latter part has several scenes that are very, very tight, as though some second unit shots were filmed with a 1.37 composition.

Having just re-watched the CoF BD, I can say that the first part of the film has ample headroom for a central crop, but the latter part has several scenes where the composition is very tight, almost as though most scenes were filmed with 1.66 in mind and others with a 1.37 ratio, it's a strange...

And those pesky feet are completely obscured...

...and if you want to get technical, there's only one complete foot visible in the 1.37:1, so it's wrong as well, based on the "Foot Theory"

So, when the musical version of The Curse of Frankenstein comes out next year, the BD release should have loads of head and foot room?

John, this looks absolutely perfect with a central crop, can't you see?? :P

This is a rough approximation of a 1.66:1 at the top of the frame, looks a helluva lot better than the BD 1.66:1 composition.

Steve, I've been searching for the information you mention over at the Hammer blog discrediting all the documents presented here, and still have found nothing, unless you're citing MOSF title cards? First of all, just because Hammer posted these pics does not mean that they are the full image...

How about Hammer themselves on their latest blog? The screencaps from their 1.66:1 version, which even they often referred to as "too tight", prove it's misframed. Anyone can see that with a little care, a proper representation of the 1.66:1 OAR could be achieved, sadly, Hammer doesn't care.

Disappointing, but not unexpected that they simply stand behind this release. Even Hammer considers the WB DVD "artfully" composed, yet we get a 1.66:1 with little regard to overall composition, seemingly done intentionally to prove their point. This release did take the focus off of the...

Very nice work Bob, hopefully this document will ensure proper OAR's on future Hammer releases, as well as put an end to this debate once and for all. It's great to have someone like yourself around, especially when an issue like this comes along.

Agreed. They're seemingly happy to ride the wave of their revolutionary 1.37:1 ratio, which is obviously right because there are no anomalies like microphones or paper coffee cups in any shot.

Steve, you can throw out as many textbook and manual references as you like, but image composition trumps all arguments. There are no hard and fast rules that supersede artistic composition. And as far as what Asher would have seen through his view-finder: A central crop on CoF is aesthetically...