Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Moe Dickstein]

Just rumours, Panasonic were rumoured to be pulling out of the plasma tv market too, they are not, i doubt they will pull out of the projector market too, maybe they will do what Mitsubishi have done and pull out of the UK market.

Mits have stopped making DLP rear projection sets as well, ending all availability of that type of display. Not sure if they have got out of TVs totally or are still doing front DLP.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL! is on dvd as 4:3. I suspect it was intended to be shown at least 1.66, but knowing how low budget and indie oriented RM was, I'm not 100% on that. He was definitely an excellent photographer and knew his stuff, though. Got anything, Bob?A side note - it sure would be nice to see someone competent take over the Meyer estate and get his movies well mastered and released in HD. *Sigh*

Sorry, nothing in my notes on that one. It's a little later than the period I focused on in my research.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Bob, is Criterion's presentation of The Blob correct at 1.66:1?

I know some effects shots are hard-matted at 1.66:1 but that was for protection.

I believe this could be 1.85:1.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Can anyone shed a light on the OAR of Frankenheimer's SECONDS?

Criterion have announced their upcoming release as 1.75:1 which is the same AR as the old laserdisc. The DVD was 1.85:1 (some sources say 1.78:1).

I am aware the difference is negligible. I am more interested in why Paramount supposedly would have released a film in 1.75:1 in 1966. I thought all the US studios had decided on 1.85:1 by then. Could it be because it was a negative pickup, produced by Kirk Douglas' production company? Were American theaters equipped to show 1.75:1 at that time?

I tried to consult all resources at hand - several Frankenheimer biographies and a 1996 American Cinematographer article in the (excellent) library of my local film museum, but without any result. The books dont say anything about aspect ratios and the article only mentions the AR of the laserdisc.

The interiors were all shot at Paramount. I'm pretty sure it's protected for 1.75:1 and composed for 1.85:1.

I know someone with a 35mm print. I'll see if I can access it and look at the matting.

 

[haineshisway]

Of course Seconds is 1.85. There's no ifs ands or buts about it. Making the Blu-ray 1.75 is, as has been stated entirely negligible and is usually done because they're going from the camera negative which has more info on the sides - by opening it up a sliver you actually get what in essence is a 1.85 shape - and they also do it for overscan on TVs.

 

[jimmyjet]

We've talked about it but considering the amount of time it would take, nobody has stepped up to the plate. I've got the 3-D titles done, but there's many more that would need to be properly researched. Bob

i am sorry if i am re-asking something that has already been stated, but the thread is so long, i may never find it.

is there a web-site with the correct aspect ratios up, yet ?

it would be valuable for the movies that you have done, irregardless of how many movies you havent done !!!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, but I have written this article which you might enjoy: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[jimmyjet]

thanks bob,

i added it to my bookmarks.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You're welcome, please let me know your thoughts.
If you have any specific AR questions from that era, I'll do my best to answer them.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Just announced for Blu-ray release is KNOCK ON WOOD.

It was originally considered for Paravision 3-D but those plans were dropped.

Filming began on June 1, 1953 and the correct AR is 1.66:1.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I agree. Mr. Wood's work leaves enough to enjoy without resorting to things that you were never meant to see in the first place.

Have fun and please report back on your findings!

Thoroughly enjoyed Mr Wood's films Bob. ...no, wait, with Jail Bait I wanted it to end quicker than any film I've ever seen before. What a stinker! But the rest, I had a good time. Though both Bride of the Monster and Night of the Ghouls entertained me more than Plan 9 From Outer Space. I also watched Burton's Ed Wood directly after, which was a hell of an experience. I imagine most people saw that film first, and THEN watched all of Wood's stuff. At the very least, Burton recreated the look of the original films to a T.

Regarding, the AR, I made these:

http://i.imgur.com/40NzgkQ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8dBq0eZ.jpg

Odd how his post 53/54 films crop so well to 16x9, whilst his earlier films do not.

Well, what I actually mean is, it's not odd at all

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's great, Eddie. Thank you for confirming visually what some of us have known for a long time!

Though filmed in July 1953, JAIL was composed for Academy and Variety recommends 1.33:1 in their May 1954 review.

I used to have 35mm prints of GLENDA, BRIDE and PLAN NINE. Your frame-grabs are an accurate representation of the proper framing.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Just announced for Blu-ray release is KNOCK ON WOOD.

It was originally considered for Paravision 3-D but those plans were dropped.

Filming began on June 1, 1953 and the correct AR is 1.66:1.

The Olive DVD from 2010 is 1.78:1, which while not 1.66:1, is certainly better than open matte.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/dvd_reviews52/knock_on_wood.htm

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Why 1.78:1? Paramount never utilized that ratio!

PS: I know the answer, just had to comment on the lack of attention to correct historical detail, that's all.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Why 1.78:1? Paramount never utilized that ratio!

PS: I know the answer, just had to comment on the lack of attention to correct historical detail, that's all.

Well, putting 1.66:1 on disc at 1.78:1 aside, nearly 99% of all 1.75:1 and 1.85:1 AR films are 1.78:1 on DVD/BD. It's simply what is done, just like 1.37:1 films are presented 1.33:1 on DVD.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's a good point Brandon, although I worry that some of the compositions may be a bit tight in that ratio. Paramount, at that early stage of widescreen composition, was not shooting loose so that it could work wider.

 

[Brandon Conway]

True. Anyone here have the 2010 DVD that would care to comment on if it comes across too tight?

 

[theonemacduff]

Deleted post as it was already covered.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi bob,

along with the aspect ratio, did you by any chance glean any info on the film size, and the grain type ?

both of these tend to make a difference for me, regarding clarity.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I don't understand your question. Can you be more specific, please?