What's new
Signup for GameFly to rent the newest 4k UHD movies!

Jack Theakston

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
935
Location
New York
Real Name
Jack Theakston
I'm not sure I understand what the disconnect is here. The studios had a problem, resolved it, and documented it.

The underlying problem is that someone at WB was misinformed (probably by IMDb), and some people are doing mental gymnastics to justify it.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,583
Real Name
Robert Harris
I'm not sure I understand what the disconnect is here. The studios had a problem, resolved it, and documented it.

The underlying problem is that someone at WB was misinformed (probably by IMDb), and some people are doing mental gymnastics to justify it.
Sorry, but the studios didn‘t resolve the problem except in memos.

Have you viewed the new disc, and compared 1.19 vs 1.33, and how each plays from shot to shot?

The film is protected for the bottom of the frame in many instances, while centered in others.

If one were to do a 1.33 extraction from the center, some shots would look odd. From the bottom, same situation. In many long shots, the top of the frame is wide open, which tells us it was meant to be the cropped area if run at 1.33. But do that, and the titles are off balance.

I’m still interested in your thoughts shot to shot comparing ratios, based upon fully centered 1.33 vs 1.19.

As an aside, I doubt that anyone at WB uses IMDb as the end reference for aspect ratios. From my experience they are far more likely to follow Mr. Feiner’s advice and allow the film to guide them. Not corporate memos. And not a website.
 

Will Krupp

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
4,039
Location
PA
Real Name
Will
The underlying problem is that someone at WB was misinformed (probably by IMDb)

Pardon me for saying so, but if the Warner team is relying on IMDb for their technical information then we should all just give up. I can't actually believe that's true, however, lol.

I will say (to save you the trouble) that this is just a layman's perspective, but I would hope they wouldn't need to do that.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see Mr. Harris' response before posting.
 

Jack Theakston

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
935
Location
New York
Real Name
Jack Theakston
Sorry, but the studios didn‘t resolve the problem except in memos.

Have you viewed the new disc, and compared 1.19 vs 1.33, and how each plays from shot to shot?

The film is protected for the bottom of the frame in many instances, while centered in others.

If one were to do a 1.33 extraction from the center, some shots would look odd. From the bottom, same situation. In many long shots, the top of the frame is wide open, which tells us it was meant to be the cropped area if run at 1.33. But do that, and the titles are off balance.

I’m still interested in your thoughts shot to shot comparing ratios, based upon fully centered 1.33 vs 1.19.

As an aside, I doubt that anyone at WB uses IMDb as the end reference for aspect ratios. From my experience they are far more likely to follow Mr. Feiner’s advice and allow the film to guide them. Not corporate memos. And not a website.

We are talking about subjectivity versus objectivity at this point. We're not talking about random memoranda in a dusty corner of a studio vault. We're talking about forgotten history that was widely reported and accepted at the time.

Some people love watching open matte 1.85 films. They're wrong too.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,583
Real Name
Robert Harris
We are talking about subjectivity versus objectivity at this point. We're not talking about random memoranda in a dusty corner of a studio vault. We're talking about forgotten history that was widely reported and accepted at the time.

Some people love watching open matte 1.85 films. They're wrong too.
Please don’t get metaphysical.

Have you actually watched the film and seen the potential problems of running 1.33 centered?
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,583
Real Name
Robert Harris
What theaters were doing is immaterial.

What the studios did was pertinent and explained in the article. Paramount was never shooting for Movietone even before the mandate and did NOT protect for that ratio as I've already said.
If studio execs and tech people weren‘t protecting for a ratio they KNEW would be used outside of their direct control I would hope they’re no longer in their positions.
 

Robert Saccone

Premium
Joined
Jan 3, 2000
Messages
656
I’ve only seen stills from this version in some of the classic monster movie books I have. I am so looking forward to getting my hands on this disc. Maybe I will make a set of mats so I can view it both ways

Sorry couldn’t resist. 🤪
 

aPhil

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
904
Location
North Carolina
Real Name
Phil Smoot
Sorry, but the studios didn‘t resolve the problem except in memos.

Have you viewed the new disc, and compared 1.19 vs 1.33, and how each plays from shot to shot?

If one were to do a 1.33 extraction from the center, some shots would look odd.

I do not know much about the 1.19 early sound frame.

My question:

Was the 1.19 area the entire frame with the entire recorded image ?
or
Was the frame still 1.33 and the camera operator framed for the 1.19 area ?

I simply don't know.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,583
Real Name
Robert Harris
I do not know much about the 1.19 early sound frame.

My question:

Was the 1.19 area the entire frame with the entire recorded image ?
or
Was the frame still 1.33 and the camera operator framed for the 1.19 area ?

I simply don't know.
The actual picture area was probably full silent 1.33:1, which is S35. The viewfinder would have been marked for
either 1.19 or a 1.33 with different parallax, or both, ignoring the area that would be covered by the optical track.
 

RobertMG

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
4,671
Real Name
Robert M. Grippo
The actual picture area was probably full silent 1.33:1, which is S35. The viewfinder would have been marked for
either 1.19 or a 1.33 with different parallax, or both, ignoring the area that would be covered by the optical track.
What a tough crowd! But I fully expect Mr F and team know every inch of these films have access to files letter documents -- bravo to them bravo to RAH for his explaining history - but from what I hear here WAC pulled off another miracle on this disc!
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
5,066
Real Name
Bryan
I’ve only seen stills from this version in some of the classic monster movie books I have. I am so looking forward to getting my hands on this disc. Maybe I will make a set of mats so I can view it both ways

Sorry couldn’t resist. 🤪
Mats ... now you've crossed the lion :D!
1665259569476.png

I can assure you I've seen improper framing of films including a version of LoA on GET-TV that in the tent scene all you saw was the tip Obi Wan's nose & the tip of Dumbledore's nose and tent in between the two (that's all I watched). I'm sure that's not how Mr. Lean intended for it to be shown.

I'm sure Dr J.(& Mr H) was projected @ 1:19,1:33, and 1:37 and at 10, 2 and 4
1665259341242.png
;) ... But what was it meant to be shown at?

This might be the perfect time how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (assuming the pin is registered -- at Bonwits 'natch)? I'm asking for a friend ;)?
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,583
Real Name
Robert Harris
Mats ... now you've crossed the lion :D!
View attachment 156968
I can assure you I've seen improper framing of films including a version of LoA on GET-TV that in the tent scene all you saw was the tip Obi Wan's nose & the tip of Dumbledore's nose and tent in between the two (that's all I watched). I'm sure that's not how Mr. Lean intended for it to be shown.

I'm sure Dr J.(& Mr H) was projected @ 1:19,1:33, and 1:37 and at 10, 2 and 4 View attachment 156963 ;) ... But what was it meant to be shown at?

This might be the perfect time how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (assuming the pin is registered -- at Bonwits 'natch)? I'm asking for a friend ;)?
The reality is that in 1931, especially in larger venues, the film would have been projected as an inverted trapezoid, then matted to appear more akin to a rectangle.

What we’re seeing in this disc is probably the most accurate the film has looked - including at its premiere in 1931.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,518
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
I can assure you I've seen improper framing of films including a version of LoA on GET-TV that in the tent scene all you saw was the tip Obi Wan's nose & the tip of Dumbledore's nose and tent in between the two (that's all I watched). I'm sure that's not how Mr. Lean intended for it to be shown.
I know there have been three different actors who have played Dumbledore, but pray tell, which one of them was in Lawrence of Arabia? :rolleyes:
 

Gerani53

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
388
Real Name
Gary Gerani
All I can say is, I'm one happy classic movie collector this Halloween season. The amazing new version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE Mr. Harris has been describing, along with an OCN release of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE? Wow. Add to that a Technicolor three-negative recombine for PHANTOM OF THE OPERA '43, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON scanned from the original negative. I mean, screw the bank account... this stuff is irresistible!
 

RobertMG

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
4,671
Real Name
Robert M. Grippo
All I can say is, I'm one happy classic movie collector this Halloween season. The amazing new version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE Mr. Harris has been describing, along with an OCN release of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE? Wow. Add to that a Technicolor three-negative recombine for PHANTOM OF THE OPERA '43, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON scanned from the original negative. I mean, screw the bank account... this stuff is irresistible!
Got rave reviews from the NY Times ---- unusual for a Horror film Compared to this

JAMES WHALE AND "FRANKENSTEIN"; Mr. Clive's Tenacity. Not for Children.​

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,319
Messages
5,135,466
Members
144,353
Latest member
SuperMarty88
Recent bookmarks
0
Top