What's new

Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

EddieLarkin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
991
Location
Yorkshire
Real Name
Nick
Those are very much appreciated Bob. I watched The Killing last night and found it to be a little "open" at 1.66:1 (comparatively, I've got The Ladykillers on right now and it's about dead on at 1.66:1). Paths of Glory is up next week and I'll crop it a little and see how it goes.
Bob Furmanek said:
By this point, both in the UK and U.S., 1.66 was simply used as protection for either 1.75 or 1.85 productions.
Except for Barry Lyndon ;)

http://i.imgur.com/Sims2FF.jpg
 

DVDvision

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
1,235
Location
Paris, France
Real Name
David
Barry Lyndon is a special case. Like every Kubrick movie.

I'm assuming Kubrick wanted on that one a particular format akin to old paintings from the era.

I think he advised Criterion for Dr Strangelove in 1.66:1 because it was then the 4/3 TV era.

Today, he would be happy to get the film in 1.85:1 because it looks neat on current TVs.

He would have stuck for Barry Lyndon to 1.66:1 thought. The DVD was 1.58:1 because he allowed for a bit less black bars in then 4/3 world.
 

Vincent_P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,147
The Criterion DR. STRANGELOVE LaserDisc was open-matte, not 1.66:1, and as a result the aspect ratio changed throughout as in-camera mattes were revealed for some shots, then disappeared elsewhere, often with a soft edge to the matte as the actual in-camera mattes were shown. The Criterion LD of LOLITA was presented the same way.

Vincent
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
Somebody told me about a University level film course which showed an open-matte copy of STRANGELOVE. The professor built his lecture around the various ratios and how Kubrick photographed it that way as part of his mise en scene.
 

DVDvision

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
1,235
Location
Paris, France
Real Name
David
I think his Criterion decision came from the then current era of 4/3 TV. He wanted to maximise image for best effect on current screens, but that was a decision made (like his other full screen masters) in a context, not out of him thinking "that is how I want this film seen forever". It was "that is how I want this film seen according to today's technology limitations".

That's why also Barry Lyndon is 1.58:1 instead of 1.66:1 (more image on a 4/3 screen).

I believe if Kubrick had seen the rise of HDTVs, he would stick to the theatrical aspect ratio for all his films now, meaning BL in 1.66:1, (because is intent is/was to replicate the painting canvases, his movie looks entirely like a living painting) and the others as listed the page before, 1.85:1 (or 1.37:1 for Killer's Kiss). He probably would open them up to 1.77:1 but we can't know for sure at this point.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Bob Furmanek said:
By February 10, 1955, in an effort to "stabilize shooting methods in British studios," the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association began recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions.
There is a small problem with that report.

Firstly, in the links you've offered it's said to be a recommendation, asking (in one case) for further input. It's be good to see an article saying the recommendation had been accepted. However, even then...

The facts appear to show the recommendation (if it was ever accepted) was ignored. To be clear here, not opinion based on how different people might view screenshots, but genuine, hard facts.

In as much as it related to us, the main thrusts of the report were that (a) the films should be shot best at 1.75:1, and (b) that the 1.75:1 frame should be towards the top, with a common top line the same as a 1.66:1 centre.

However, we have lots of evidence these didn't happen.

Firstly, on the raised common top line. Many of us are plagued with old open matte releases of British films fron the '60s which were supposed to be widescreen. I've checked all of mine (a substantial number) and I've yet to find one where the titles didn't appear to be dead centre. One or two where the titles float around a bit, but all the fixed ones are dead centre.

Secondly, I'm sure (at least I'd hope) that the final word on this should come from the director, and/or cinematographer. Here's something anyone can try. In fact I hope they do. Go to the Criterion Collection page. Search to bring up all films they've eleased, either on Blu-ray Disc or DVD. List by country (you can sort by clicking at the top of the list).

Now, scroll down to all of the British films between 1955 and 1970. Check out the aspect ratio.

Obviously, we can set aside 'scope films.

The earliest can find in 1.75:1 is The Long Good Friday from 1979. *

Almost all are 1.66:1. One 1.85:1 and a few 1.37/1.33:1. Not a single 1.75:1.

But here's the thing, several are director approved or cinematographer approved transfers. Again, you can check this by clicking on the title - it says if the transfer was approved by the director or cinematographer.

Why would a director shoot a film in 1.75:1 in the 1960s, then change the aspect ratio to 1.66:1 for home video release in an era of 1.78:1 releases?

Of course, I don't have every DVD/Blu-ray Disc ever released, so in the spirit of the thread - genuine, empirical research - over to the forum members.
Can anyone find a director approved or cinematographer approved transfer from between say 1955 and 1970 that's 1.75:1 ? I've looked at Criterion, what about BFI releases? Mastes of Cinema? Major studios?

Can anyone find an open matte release of a film from that era where the titles are not central?

I think that's a legitimate point to make, isn't it? Is it reaearch we should not do? Are these questions we shouldn't ask?

Steve W

*EDIT - Having sorted & filtered using different criteria I've now found a couple of other films in 1.78:1, but no 1.75:1, and both were mid-'70s, and after the era we're discussing.

SW
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Yorkshire said:
There is a small problem with that report.

Firstly, in the links you've offered it's said to be a recommendation, asking (in one case) for further input. It's be good to see an article saying the recommendation had been accepted. However, even then...

The facts appear to show the recommendation (if it was ever accepted) was ignored. To be clear here, not opinion based on how different people might view screenshots, but genuine, hard facts.

In as much as it related to us, the main thrusts of the report were that (a) the films should be shot best at 1.75:1, and (b) that the 1.75:1 frame should be towards the top, with a common top line the same as a 1.66:1 centre.

However, we have lots of evidence these didn't happen.

Firstly, on the raised common top line. Many of us are plagued with old open matte releases of British films fron the '60s which were supposed to be widescreen. I've checked all of mine (a substantial number) and I've yet to find one where the titles didn't appear to be dead centre. One or two where the titles float around a bit, but all the fixed ones are dead centre.

Secondly, I'm sure (at least I'd hope) that the final word on this should come from the director, and/or cinematographer. Here's something anyone can try. In fact I hope they do. Go to the Criterion Collection page. Search to bring up all films they've eleased, either on Blu-ray Disc or DVD. List by country (you can sort by clicking at the top of the list).

Now, scroll down to all of the British films between 1955 and 1979. Check out the aspect ratio.

Obviously, we can set aside 'scope films.

The only one I can find in 1.75:1 is The Long Good Friday from 1979.

Almost all are 1.66:1. One 1.85:1 and a few 1.37/1.33:1. Not a single 1.75:1.

But here's the thing, several are director approved or cinematographer approved transfers. Again, you can check this by clicking on the title - it says if the transfer was approved by the director or cinematographer.

Why would a director shoot a film in 1.75:1 in the 1960s, then change the aspect ratio to 1.66:1 for home video release in an era of 1.78:1 releases?

Of course, I don't have every DVD/Blu-ray Disc ever released, so in the spirit of the thread - genuine, empirical research - over to the forum members.

Can anyone find a director approved or cinematographer approved transfer from between say 1955 and 1970 that's 1.75:1 ? I've looked at Criterion, what about BFI releases? Mastes of Cinema? Major studios?

Can anyone find an open matte release of a film from that era where the titles are not central?

I think that's a legitimate point to make, isn't it? Is it reaearch we should not do? Are these questions we shouldn't ask?

Steve W
Steve,

You're asking too many questions for this early in the morning. Can you narrow it down to just a few so we don't have to rack our brains too much?
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford said:
Steve,

You're asking too many questions for this early in the morning. Can you narrow it down to just a few so we don't have to rack our brains too much?
Well...it's all the films in the era.

Bob's research threw up a recommendation, which up to now most of us (myself included) took as read, that British films from around '55 through to at least '65, and probably later, were 1.75:1.

As no director/cinematograoher approved transfer of a British film in the Criterion Collection fits that ratio, it throws the whole thing into some doubt.

It's very easy to check this using the methiod I explained about, but I'll post the individual titles later.

What I'm asking is, does anyone have a DVD or Blu-ray Disc of ANY British film from '55 to '75 which is (a) approved by either director and cinematographer, and (b) in a ratio of 1.75:1.

Because if we can't find a single example, or if examples of the ratio are rare compared to director approved 1.66:1 releases, we have to change.

Up until now, if anyone posted asking what the correct ratio was for a British film of that era, Bob would post that recommendation and say 'it would have been 1.75:1'. I think that's now in some doubt.

Steve W
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Yorkshire said:
Well...it's all the films in the era.

Bob's research threw up a recommendation, which up to now most of us (myself included) took as read, that British films from around '55 through to at least '65, and probably later, were 1.75:1.

As no director/cinematograoher approved transfer of a British film in the Criterion Collection fits that ratio, it throws the whole thing into some doubt.

It's very easy to check this using the methiod I explained about, but I'll post the individual titles later.

What I'm asking is, does anyone have a DVD or Blu-ray Disc of ANY British film from '55 to '75 which is (a) approved by either director and cinematographer, and (b) in a ratio of 1.75:1.

Because if we can't find a single example, or if examples of the ratio are rare compared to director approved 1.66:1 releases, we have to change.

Up until now, if anyone posted asking what the correct ratio was for a British film of that era, Bob would post that recommendation and say 'it would have been 1.75:1'. I think that's now in some doubt.

Steve W
Why is that in doubt?
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford said:
Why is that in doubt?
Because every time a director approved transfer has appeared (of a British film from that era) the aspect ratio has not been 1.75:1.

Given a choice between what the director says, or something in a trade paper, I'll go with a director every time.

Is anyone seriously going to claim that, by some bizarre coincidence, Criterion just happened to choose only the few films shot in 1.66:1, and avoided all the mass of 1.75:1 films by a happy accident?

Or that the only directors Criterion chose to approve transfers were subject to a collective amnesia about the ratio of their titles?

If not, then a blanket "It was a British film from '55-'70 so it must have been/was probably 1.75:1" is open to question. Indeed, I'd say the facts make it extremely doubtful.

Steve W
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
So you basing that on what Criterion has released? Also, director approved transfer, which releases are you specifically talking about?
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford said:
So you basing that on what Criterion has released? Also, director approved transfer, which releases are you specifically talking about?
Firstly yes, here's the list of releases. I've just composed this list. I'm happy to be corrected on any of them.


==============================================

Okay, here's a list of all the British, non-scope films released on either DVD or Blu-ray Disc by the Criterion Collection, with an original release date of between 1955 and 1970. These can all be checked at the CC site.

Richard III (1955) 1.66:1 (new digital master of The Film Foundation’s 2012 4K restoration).
A Night to Remember (1958) 1.66:1
Fiend Without A Face (1958) 1.66:1
The Horse's Mouth (1958) 1.66:1 (New widescreen digital transfer supervised by director Ronald Neame)
Sapphire (1959) 1.66:1
Peeping Tom (1960) 1.66:1
Tunes of Glory (1960) 1.66:1
The League of Gentlemen (1960) 1.66:1
Victim (1961) 1.66:1
All Night Long (1962) 1.66:1
Lord of the Flies (1962) 1.37:1 (New, restored digital transfer (box set edition); new, restored 4K digital film transfer, supervised by editor and cameraman Gerald Feil, ASC)
This Sporting Life (1963) 1.66:1
The Householder (1963) 1.33:1
Repulsion (1965) 1.85:1
Cul-De-Sac (1966) 1.66:1 (New, restored high-definition digital transfer, approved by director Roman Polanski)If… (1968) 1.66:1 (New, restored high-definition digital transfer, approved by cinematographer Miroslav Ondříček and assistant editor Ian Rakoff)
Kes (1970) 1.66:1 (Newly restored digital transfer, supervised and approved by director Ken Loach and director of photography Chris Menges)

So, every non-‘scope British film in the Criterion Collection from 1955-1970 is either 1.33/1.37:1, 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. Of the 17 films, 14 are 1.66:1. Five are listed as being approved by director or cinematographer, with 4 of these 166:1 and one 1.37:1.

Not a single one is 1.75:1.

======================================================



Okay, the above list is just Criterion. But this is the question I'm asking. I'm not here posting the list saying it's definitive, I'm asking the question - does anyone have any other British, non-'scope film originally released 1955-1970 which is director/cinematographer approved? If so, what's the ratio?

Surely that's in the spirit of the research that this thread is supposed to be about.

By the way, I do have some Masters of Cinema and BFI releases at home, too. I did a quick check over the weekend and couldn't find a 1.75:1 release, but I can't offer a definitive list.

The above list, so far, is not absolute, definitve proof. However, it does call into question the idea almost all British film of the era were 1.75:1, unless (as I say) it's all an outlandish conicidence.

Are people at this thread really interested in the research? I presume yes, in which case they can help. Check your Blu-ray Discs and DVD for British films originally released 1955-1970. Look for anthing that's director/cinematographer approved. Please list it here and tell us the ratio.

Steve W
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Wasn't Richard III filmed mostly in 1954? As to your research question, I think people are mostly interested in finding out AR knowledge about a particular film(s) not necessarily doing a bunch of research.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Bob Furmanek said:
I don't have information from Variety but here are the Boxoffice listings. I suspect he was composing for 1.85 and protecting for 1.66.

1.66 as a presentation format was pretty much finished in the U.S. by the end of 1954. Paramount had been the primary supporter of that ratio but starting on Feb.13, 1954, they were recommending 1.85 for VistaVision. The last holdouts for 1.66 were the 20th Century Fox Panoramic Productions, Republic and RKO.

By February 10, 1955, in an effort to "stabilize shooting methods in British studios," the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association began recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions.

By this point, both in the UK and U.S., 1.66 was simply used as protection for either 1.75 or 1.85 productions.

attachicon.gif
KubrickKillers.JPG
attachicon.gif
KubrickKilling.JPG
attachicon.gif
KubrickPaths.JPG
attachicon.gif
KubrickLolita.JPG
attachicon.gif
KubrickDr..JPG
Bob,

I guess we need to find some UK titles from 1955 until the mid-to-late 60s in which that recommendation was adhere to.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford, on 08 Jul 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wasn't Richard III filmed mostly in 1954? As to your research question, I think people are mostly interested in finding out AR knowledge about a particular film(s) not necessarily doing a bunch of research.

Yes, I believe so. It was VistaVision, so possibly variable. I wanted to include it as I didn't want there to be any appearance of cherry picking.

If this sort of research is to be useful it must be as thorough as possible, so it's not just these transfers. Does anyone have direct quotes from director's biographies? Anything else we can attribute to a film-maker's first-hand experience? It's all useful.

Sorry, we also shouldn't forget the other aspect of the recommendation - the titles.

Bob has kindly posted at his site what titles look like if they have a common top which is not central, and they stick out like a sore thumb:

https://516da1f7-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/3dfilmarchive/home/widescreen-documentation/Titles_edited-1.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7coLltAqyu3cpK2_v2bhlj-vs-cPkV_1cP4EgOk1_LdfCqPFVloV22H8M2IUYEqUbmlKyuGXKPoybFnJarc41J7_EkKvHEyMFVcoeuiJNhWao5mEK9sq8fzWtHrA_oHpHc1XGVER5AosG_5qmnhx2mXfA0RUjSdgDuQTqze7IJWj_5Of4PQy0a8OUNs3PVGDH9t7vHCwF2D4eT5sw3_jhr0LqVZDDfegGjuqLdN2VsiEuFMWT5A7RREn9SfOlRCBgxyDvDdizsCwXIBCtVYiLRkroftT5w%3D%3D&attredirects=0

As I've said, I have plenty of British films '55-'70 on open matte DVD. I've yet to see any with asymmetric titles like that, or even similar. Apart from films where the titles appear at different places around the screen, all of my 1.37:1/1.33:1 open matte copies have central titles, which would look odd and positioned towards the bottom of the frame if cropped as per the recommendation.

Steve W
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford said:
Bob,

I guess we need to find some UK titles from 1955 until the mid-to-late 60s in which that recommendation was adhere to.
I agree.

If no/few director/cinematographer approved British titles are found, I'm not sure the recommendation can be taken as gospel anymore.

Bob's research says that by '58 only 10% of British films were 1.66:1. To redress the balance so that the recommendation appears to have been adhered to, given that we have 4 director approved transfers in 1.66:1, we would need 36 in 1.75:1 from labels other than Criterion and no more 1.66:1 to redress the balance.

When researching. please remember:

British films
1955-1970
Director/cinematographer approved (if possible)

Steve W
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Yorkshire said:
I agree.

If no/few director/cinematographer approved titles are found, I'm not sure the recommendation can be taken as gospel.

Bob's research says that by '58 only 10% of British films were 1.66:1. To redress the balance so that the recommendation appeares to have been adhered to, given that we have 4 director approved transfers in 1.66:1, we would need 36 in 1.75:1 from labels other than Criterion and no more 1.66:1 to redress the balance.

Steve W
I wouldn't say that as it was only a recommendation, not an edict.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford said:
I wouldn't say that as it was only a recommendation, not an edict.
Point taken.

I think what I mean to say is this. Up to this point, if anyone came to this thread and asked what ratio a non-scope British film from that era should be, the answer up to now has been a pretty emphatic "that would have been 1.75:1" (see posts 2548, 2561, 2652, 2673, and 2820), sometimes treating anyone who disagrees with complete contempt. That's quite different to 'only a recommendation, not an edict'.

Not possibly, or probably, but sometimes a straight statement of fact, and other times very close to it.

Based on those numbers from Criterion, if nothing too much different appears from elsewhere, I don't think we can say that anymore. I think we have to say that, in as far as directors from that era have told us, they preferred 1.66:1, all be it with a reasonably small sample.

If it were any one film, or just one or two, they might be the exception to the rule. But when 4 out of 5 directors/cinematographers have told Criterion to frame at 1.66:1, and the fifth at 1.37:1, I don't think we can ever say 1.75:1 again with any degree of certainty at all, unless there's other evidence (as there is for A Hard Day's Night).

But just to be clear once again, all I've done at the moment is posted a question, a request for more information. I'm more than happy to change my mind if there's further evidence forthcoming.

Just one more thing. Bob's research has clearly showed up the studios reporting most British films (90%) as 1.75:1 by '58. What the directors have said appears to be very different. So we really should be asking why is there a difference? Can the studios word be trusted when it appears to be completely at odds with the film makers?

So, for example, that leader on A Hard Day's Night, did the instruction to project 1.75:1 come from the studio or the director?

Steve W
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob

On October 6, 1955, the Ideal Kinema reported: "Every projectionist will welcome the decision (reported in KINE last week) that the British Film Producers' Association has approved its technical committee's proposals for standardization on aspect ratios.

This is a matter in which the British industry, most commendably, has given a lead to the world, including the United States. The decision to standardise at a ratio of 1.75 to 1, tolerable for both 1.65 to 1 and 1.85 to 1, means that, very soon, the man in the box should be able to relax from the tiresome necessity of re-racking to prevent either topping or tailing his picture.
The new standard, of course, does not apply to processes such as CinemaScope and VistaVision."​
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Yes Bob, we know that. It's not in dispute that this is what the article said.

Look Bob, no one is criticising your research or saying it's wrong. well done for finding those documents and articles - excellent stuff. I'm sure they are correct, in as far as they go.

What's being said is that the facts - what the directors of the time have told Criterion to do with the aspect ratio of their films - appear to show that the recommendation was ignored, certainly be 100% of the British directors who've had their films released on Criterion who composed for non-anamorphic widescreen during the late '50s and '60s.

Steve W
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,736
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top