Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

Edited

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edited

 

[DVDvision]

After a quick browse, the 1.33:1 version of While The City Sleeps chops off a bit on the sides, depending on the shots I guess. In the "Superscope" version the car is seen, only the wheels a bit masked off.

The 1.33:1 doesn't matte well either in 1.77:1 or 1.66:1 with VLC player (or even 1.33:1 for that matter). I'll take the Superscope Warner Archive disc as preferred viewing

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The continental Superscope version would have been cropped to something closer to 2.1

The Warner Archive disc is the U.S. release, in the ratio intended by Lang.

 

[Mark-P]

Olive has just released an open-matte version of The Atomic Kid on Blu-ray. Not that there is going to be a lot of demand for this low-profile title, but the screencaps make it painfully obvious that it was composed for widescreen.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, Republic began composing for widescreen in May of 1953 and made their official announcement on August 8, 1953. THE ATOMIC KID began filming on June 14, 1954. It should be 1.66.
Why isn't anybody at Paramount/Olive paying attention to my research?

By the way, if they get around to TOBOR THE GREAT, that should be 1.66 as well.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, Republic began composing for widescreen in May of 1953 and made their official announcment on August 8, 1953. THE ATOMIC KID began filming on June 14, 1954. It should be 1.66.

Why isn't anybody at Paramount/Olive paying attention to my research?

By the way, if they get around to TOBOR THE GREAT, that should be 1.66 as well.

You might wish to take your research out of the equation.

They can do their own research, lest they not believe yours.

They are the studio.

RAH

 

[PaulaJ]

Bob, do you have any information on the correct aspect ratio for John Ford's two 1953 films, The Sun Shines Bright and Mogambo? Olive just released The Sun Shines Bright on Blu-ray/DVD in 1:37 (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Sun-Shines-Bright-Blu-ray/64158/#Screenshots) and I've only seen Mogambo in 1:37 (TCM broadcast).

Thanks!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You might wish to take your research out of the equation.

They can do their own research, lest they not believe yours.

They are the studio.

RAH

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. The studios are never wrong.

THE SUN SHINES BRIGHT began production on 8/25/52 and MOGAMBO on 11/17/52.

1.37 is correct for both titles.

 

[John Hodson]

You might wish to take your research out of the equation.

They can do their own research, lest they not believe yours.

They are the studio.

RAH

There are many *excellent* examples of studios actually taking the time to do what they feel is adequate research. And royally screwing it up. Let me present just one that springs instantly to mind; Hammer Studios.

No Paramount I'll grant you. But then, when it comes to catalogue titles, Paramount just don't feel that they're paramount. And maybe - just maybe - the finer points of home cinema presentation get a little...fuzzy.

Bob's research is both revelatory and quite, quite vital.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks, John.

I'm happy that both Universal and Warner Bros. listened when they were about to master both CREATURE and DIAL M FOR MURDER in 1.37...

 

[haineshisway]

Yes, Republic began composing for widescreen in May of 1953 and made their official announcement on August 8, 1953. THE ATOMIC KID began filming on June 14, 1954. It should be 1.66.
Why isn't anybody at Paramount/Olive paying attention to my research?

By the way, if they get around to TOBOR THE GREAT, that should be 1.66 as well.

Of course the reviewer at blu-ray.com doesn't seem to be aware the film should be widescreen - he doesn't even mention the possibility despite his own screen caps showing enough head room to drive several tanks through. Tanks a lot.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Following up this post on the first widescreen science fiction film:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-research/?p=3933720

Here are scans from an original 1954 SuperCinecolor 35mm trailer. Please note that I have not pumped up the color in any way. What you see is what is on the actual film.

I've included the full image but this would have been matted to 1.85:1 in theaters. That's why there is such an abundance of head room.

As you can see, the film was quite colorful. It's really a shame that no 35mm elements survive in order to replicate the original vibrant color palette.

 

[Yorkshire]

There are many *excellent* examples of studios actually taking the time to do what they feel is adequate research. And royally screwing it up. Let me present just one that springs instantly to mind; Hammer Studios..

In your opinion.

But let's not re-open that one.

Steve W

 

[John Hodson]

You just did.

And not just my opinion. Though Hammer, like others, appear to believe that opinions = research.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

More information, including some widescreen scans from RIDERS TO THE STARS, can be found on this page:

https://sites.google.com/site/3dfilmarchive/riders-to-the-stars

 

[revgen]

Of course the reviewer at blu-ray.com doesn't seem to be aware the film should be widescreen - he doesn't even mention the possibility despite his own screen caps showing enough head room to drive several tanks through. Tanks a lot.

Exactly.

Here's how it's supposed to look.







1.37 Aspect Ratio







1.66 Aspect Ratio

 

[OliverK]

Bob,with regard to two anamorphic 65mm features that were never shown in the ultrawide ratio, do you have any knowledge as to when and how it was decided that they would only be released in Scope or Scope and flat 70mm respectively?Of course I am talking about RAINTREE COUNTY and FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, both having been produced in the very short period of the super roadshow spectaculars.Camera 65 and Ultra Panavision are interesting formats as to my knowledge only two movies (Ben Hur and Mutiny on the Bounty) shot in that format were in the majority contact printed to 70mm for their roadshow presentation. All the others ended up in other formats or were optically printed to accomodate the curvature of cinerama screens.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Not off the top of my head. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find any literature on this issue.

If I have any luck, I'll be glad to share it.

 

[OliverK]

Not off the top of my head. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find any literature on this issue. If I have any luck, I'll be glad to share it.

Thanks, I would be interested in hearing about it!So far I have only heard that previews for FOTRE were not that great and therefore it was decided not to do a Cinerama release and prints.For Raintree County it is I think widely known that supposedly it was decided that there weren't enough cinemas to show it in 70mm with Around The World in 80 Days still being exhibited with great success at the time of Raintree Countys release.