Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[marsnkc]

Er, no. It was a "debate" with Jack Theakston about the aspect ratio. Jack made the suggestion that it was for the money and the widest audience. I agree.

Those self-serving, avaricious baskets at Criterion! If I'd known they were trying to make money on it, I'd have boycotted them. Imagine releasing a remastered, multiple-aspect ratio, 3-disc high definition set, with hours of terrific documentaries - plus a book! - and all wrapped up in a beautiful slip-cased package for the cynical purpose of appealing to a wider audience (thus lowering the tone) and gouging the poor unsuspecting creatures for the outrageous sum of $25 (the amount I paid - shipped! - through Criterion's site. Barnes and Noble won't be too far behind. A friend opted for the DVD set....$20). They might have done the decent thing, released each ratio separately and charged a more justifiable $9 or $7 for each (of course, I'd still expect the book and the extras). That way, the Skyfall and Expendables punters would have them flying off the shelves at Walmart. (I'm a Bond fan, but...) (Those who paid $80 - Lawrence was $120 - for a VHS pan and scan movie in the early days might actually mistake this for a bargain, and wonder how, on the contrary, Criterion can make money on it - even at Amazon's current price).

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It's a good thing you never collected film, Andrew. An original 35mm print, which you can run in any ratio your heart desires, could cost several thousand!

 

[marsnkc]

It's a good thing you never collected film, Andrew. An original 35mm print, which you can run in any ratio your heart desires, could cost several thousand!

If one can afford it, a pristine print for that amount would represent better value for money than $120 for a dreadful pan and scan tape, making the hi-def Waterfront deal a thing unimaginable 'til now.

 

[John Hodson]

Hollywood Elsewhere has some good news and some frankly terrible news on the forthcoming BD of George Stevens magnificent Shane; Shane Aspect Ratio Conflict

The good news is it's on it's way, the bad news is the decision on AR.
I've viewed Shane at an approximation of 1.66:1 and while it certainly is the original theatrical aspect ratio, it simply doesn't work. It's ironic isn't it that Loyal Griggs cinematography - so perfect, it pricks my eyes with tears - won an Oscar, despite being hobbled when the film was released.
Unfortunately, Wells rather eccentric views (I'm being kind) on certain titles, may lead to his opinion here - which is totally correct - being dismissed (as the comments below the linked piece show). I have everything crossed that this turns out well...

 

[Robert Harris]

Hollywood Elsewhere has some good news and some frankly terrible news on the forthcoming BD of George Stevens magnificent Shane; Shane Aspect Ratio Conflict The good news is it's on it's way, the bad news is the decision on AR.I've viewed Shane at an approximation of 1.66:1 and while it certainly is the original theatrical aspect ratio, it simply doesn't work. It's ironic isn't it that Loyal Griggs cinematography - so perfect, it pricks my eyes with tears - won an Oscar, despite being hobbled when the film was released.Unfortunately, Wells rather eccentric views (I'm being kind) on certain titles, may lead to his opinion here - which is totally correct - being dismissed (as the comments below the linked piece show). I have everything crossed that this turns out well...

There is a bit more going on here than meets the eye.
While I would love to also see the film in 1.37, the 1.66 has been formatted on a shot by shot basis, as opposed to locking in at a 1.66 center and running.
George Stevens, Jr., whom I trust implicitly, has approved. He was not only on set for the shoot in 1951, but also, rumor has it, knew the director reasonably well.
Hopefully, a dual format release can occur, as the data would have been completed both ways.
RAH

 

[Yorkshire]

There is a bit more going on here than meets the eye.While I would love to also see the film in 1.37, the 1.66 has been formatted on a shot by shot basis, as opposed to locking in at a 1.66 center and running.George Stevens, Jr., whom I trust implicitly, has approved. He was not only on set for the shoot in 1951, but also, rumor has it, knew the director reasonably well.Hopefully, a dual format release can occur, as the data would have been completed both ways.RAH

Am I allowed to ask what the trades said?

It's very sad - a film shot for 1.37 should be shown in 1.37. This is a rare instance where I can understand a non-intended ratio to be included, as it appears that was how many people would have seen it, so it has some impact on its historical position.

But come on, could including the original aspect ratio hurt anyone? Apparently it's been prepared already anyway.

Steve W

 

[Robert Harris]

Cost issues must be taken into consideration. Shane is a two hour film. Might both versions fit on a single Blu-ray. It would have to be tested. Certainly, the 1.37 would use less data throughput.

If it had to go to a second disc, then it becomes a matter of cost.

RAH

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

This is a rare instance where I can understand a non-intended ratio to be included, as it appears that was how many people would have seen it, so it has some impact on its historical position.

In this case it's not even the historical presentation, it's a new shot-by-shot 1.66 tilt-and-scan that would not have been what audiences saw during the original 1953 release.

This release of Shane should have the originally intended 1.37 version as the main feature, the new 1.66 should be, at best, an alternate version.

 

[RobHam]

This is one of HTF's BIG threads and I've read this one since close to the beginning - sometimes with amusement at how angry people get with what is the "original aspect ratio".

However, Shane is a movie I have loved from the age of six onwards, and at no time have I ever seen it at anything other than Academy ratio. Looking at Mr Wells interpretation of what 1.66:1 would do to the frame, I finally throw my hat in the ring with many of the others here - it's just wrong.

No hysterics, no tantrums.

it's just wrong.

 

[Robert Harris]

This is one of HTF's BIG threads and I've read this one since close to the beginning - sometimes with amusement at how angry people get with what is the "original aspect ratio".

However, Shane is a movie I have loved from the age of six onwards, and at no time have I ever seen it at anything other than Academy ratio. Looking at Mr Wells interpretation of what 1.66:1 would do to the frame, I finally throw my hat in the ring with many of the others here - it's just wrong.

No hysterics, no tantrums.

it's just wrong.

At least one of Mr. Wells' images is incorrect.

 

[John Hodson]

There are quite a few Academy framed films that, I suspect, would sit inside a 1.66:1 frame fairly well. When Optimum first released the John and Roy Boulting's 1950 thriller, Seven Days To Noon, on DVD, they did so at 1.66:1 and there were few shots that looked obviously wrong (it was, understandably, a tad tight) unless you were familiar with it at 1.37:1 (happily, they re-released it at the correct ratio).

But I didn't want to see Seven Days To Noon at 1.66:1, and I'm even less anxious to see Shane finagled into widescreen, even though I would want the BD to include both OAR and OTAR.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

Article coming soon...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

 

[Matt Hough]

TCM showed THE PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE today (first time I've seen it in years), and it was shown in 1.33:1. I know that was wrong. 1.75 or 1.85?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

1.85 for PHANTOM.

 

[Matt Hough]

Thanks, Bob.

 

[DVDvision]

I don't mind myself the 1.66:1 version being corrected, as the original showings in 1.66 would have been a bit rough on the compositions. As I said earlier in this thread, It is the job of the guy in charge of remastering the film to make the framing look natural. New transfers always add some extra space (or less) depending on who is in charge.

I've seen directors adjust framings in several shots at the transfer stage to improve the compositions, where the old transfer was a straight job. It happens a lot and no one notice, as long as it looks good. It's like adjusting the 5.1 mix, it's often done.

You even have flopped shots in some films to improve the geography of a scene (where the old releases prints and transfers would have the shots straight) like in Terminator. Only fans notice it.

However, as noted, this is a release that would warrant a dual format extra disc with the 1.33:1 original composition, by all means.

 

[Yorkshire]

There are quite a few Academy framed films that, I suspect, would sit inside a 1.66:1 frame fairly well. When Optimum first released the John and Roy Boulting's 1950 thriller, Seven Days To Noon, on DVD, they did so at 1.66:1 and there were few shots that looked obviously wrong (it was, understandably, a tad tight) unless you were familiar with it at 1.37:1 (happily, they re-released it at the correct ratio).

But I didn't want to see Seven Days To Noon at 1.66:1, and I'm even less anxious to see Shane finagled into widescreen, even though I would want the BD to include both OAR and OTAR.

JH, I think you can take just about any 1.37:1 film and crop it to 1.66:1, and if you move the matte you can make it quite watchable, though a little tight.

How many 1.37:1 films have you seen that were really tight? It's just not how 99% of directors composed back then. Almost every 1.37:1 film you watch has bags of headroom for most shots.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone should do this.

Steve W

 

[John Hodson]

JH, I think you can take just about any 1.37:1 film and crop it to 1.66:1, and if you move the matte you can make it quite watchable, though a little tight.

How many 1.37:1 films have you seen that were really tight? It's just not how 99% of directors composed back then. Almost every 1.37:1 film you watch has bags of headroom for most shots.

Many do have lots of headroom; many can be cropped to 1.66:1 (which is a point I made).

And, yes, IMHO, there are films which are fatally damaged by doing so. All that, however, is moot - Shane was shot for Academy.

Quite beautifully shot for Academy. There's a world of difference between 'watchable' and 'impeccably framed'.

 

[DVDvision]

I'm not certain, but watching the current DVD of Shane, it seemed to me the film was sightly looped off on the sides. Assuming there is more on the negative than the current DVD, they probably could get away with reframing to 1.66:1, while keeping about the same head room or sightly adjusting it.