Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Yorkshire]

Jerry Lewis is one who remembers.

His solo films are hard-matted 1.66 and his on-set video assist monitors are masked to 1.85.

We've been friends for over 30 years so a few months ago, I called and asked him what was the definite correct ratio.

It's 1.85:1.

The prints are hard-matted at 1.66:1 simply for protection. Not every theater around the world was running 1.85.

Now, if some ill-informed telecine engineer/producer got the IP for THE LADIES' MAN, they might assume that 1.66:1 is correct based on the hard-matte on the film.

I hope that I've made my point...

I love this.

One minute directors are unreliable. The next minute we're quoting them.

But, of course, it was one poster saying one thing and another poster the other. Classic 'pincer movement' methinks.

But Bob, if you trust Jerry Lewis, why shouldn't we trust Ronald Neame, Roman Polanski, Miroslav Ondříček and Ken Loach? As you trust JL, I presume you must trust those directors and cinematographers who have informed Criterion. Or if you trust one and not he other you'll say why.

And Bruce, am I to presume you're now going to tell Bob that he shouldn't listen to Jerry Lewis, as he's only a forgetful old film maker? If not, I presume you're going to say why.

Flexi-logic at its best.

Bob, in specific relation to your post, I'm not discussing Jerry Lewis' films here, I'm discussing the aspect ratios of British films 1955-1970. I'm sure you're right about the Jerry Lewis films, and I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

They are not equal comparisons Steve.

JL has specifically told Bob what the aspect ratio is. And not surprisingly, it is in line with the evidence.

We do not know what the other four directors involvements were with Criterion, whether or not they gave instructions about, or even commented on the aspect ratio. We don't know this.

If we did know it, if any of them declared, like JL has, that one of their films was actually composed and not merely protected at 1.66:1, then I would be completely satisfied on that point.

 

[Yorkshire]

Of course, if you want a proper laugh...

I wonder if anyone remembers this. Jeffery Welles (that well known 'boxy is best' fascist) argued that Rosemary's Baby should be 1.66:1.

Can anyone remember what the main argument against him was?

Can anyone remember it being noted that Polanski himself had approved a 1.85:1 transfer for Criterion?

And now when, amongst others, Polanski approves a 1.66:1 transfer for Criterion he's clearly some doddery old fool dribbling into his Horlicks who can't be trusted to remember what day it is, let alone the aspect ratio of one of his films.

You were all right about Rosemary's Baby being 1.85:1 gentlemen, and the reasons for it.

Now, are we going to follow the same course of logic, or succumb to a little confirmation bias?

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

They are not equal comparisons Steve.

JL has specifically told Bob what the aspect ratio is. And not surprisingly, it is in line with the evidence.

We do not know what the other four directors involvements were with Criterion, whether or not they gave instructions about, or even commented on the aspect ratio. We don't know this.

If we did know it, if any of them declared, like JL has, that one of their films was actually composed and not merely protected at 1.66:1, then I would be completely satisfied on that point.

Eddie, you're basing your argument on a guess. A guess that 4 separate directors all approved transfers which were incorrect in aspect ratio. They all made an identical error, completely independently of each other.

Do you have any evidence for this? One, fair enough. But all four? Exactly the same mistake? Independently? Isn't that stretching credulity just a little?

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

Two things:

Rosemary's Baby being 1.85:1 was in line with the evidence, as opposed to contradicting it.

Polanksi himself came out and declared what the aspect ratio was:

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/07/criterion-cleav/
[font="inherit;font-size:20px;font-weight:bold;margin:0px;color:rgb(0"]RRTPolanski[/font] on July 17, 2012 at 11:19 pm [font="inherit;font-style:inherit;margin:0px"]said:[/font]
A colleague has made me aware of the discussion under way here, and while it amuses me beyond measure, I feel under the obligation to scholars and in defence of my magnificent friends at Criterion to set the matters aright. “Rosemary’s Baby” is being released by Criterion in 1.85:1 because that is the aspect ratio I directed the film to have, because that is the aspect ratio that I prefer, and because that is the aspect ratio I insisted upon. While there was protection in the filming for the possibility of inadvertent projection at 1.66:1, it was never my intention to allow such projection if I could maintain control of the circumstance of projection. This film is and will always be properly framed at 1.85:1.
And Mr. Wells, while I admire your sense of righteous fury, let me say to you that I know a little bit about fascism, and disagreeing with you is not the hallmark. However, your response to disagreement looks familiar.
Polanski


Assuming that wasn't fake, I mean. Wells didn't think so:

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/07/letter-to-polan/

 

[EddieLarkin]

Eddie, you're basing your argument on a guess. A guess that 4 separate directors all approved transfers which were incorrect in aspect ratio. They all made an identical error, completely independently of each other.

Do you have any evidence for this? One, fair enough. But all four? Exactly the same mistake? Independently? Isn't that stretching credulity just a little?

Steve W

I don't think so. The common misconception appears to be that everything in 50s/60s Britain was 1.66:1. You can ask pretty much any film buff and they'll tell you that.

Criterion clearly make that assumption as well, and they are the ones producing the transfers. We don't know the precise involvement of the directors, and I doubt very much they are actually being asked what aspect ratio their film should be in before production on the transfer/master begins.

They are not the ones making the mistake, Criterion are.

 

[Yorkshire]

Eddie, if I quote a quote you've used, can I presume we both agree on the point?

Polanski:

"Rosemary’s Baby is being released by Criterion in 1.85:1 because that is the aspect ratio I directed the film to have..."

Eddie, I think you've just supported my point.

Many thanks.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

. We don't know the precise involvement of the directors, and I doubt very much they are actually being asked what aspect ratio their film should be in before production on the transfer/master begins.

Yes we do. You yourself just quoted Polanski showing EXACTLY the involvement he had in Criterion's release.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

Criterion's release of Rosemary's Baby, not his other films. And that's if we assume the post was actually Polanski.

Playing Devil's advocate though, Polanski seems to me to be the sort to be a bit more involved with these sorts of things, the sort who would know and speak out if something was wrong. He did just this when Warner released a cropped 1.33:1 version of Frantic (though that is a little different).

For the record, I'm not saying that Repulsion and Cul-de-sac ARE 1.75:1. I'm just saying 1.66:1 is not in line with the evidence, and until Polanski actually says otherwise or some documentation that actually relates to each film appears, then I remain unsure.

 

[Adam_S]

And remember, these transfers are being made for television.

No one is asking these old directors to approve a new print for projection, they're asking them, "does that look right on TV?" and getting a thumbs up.

Here's a cracked take on 1.66:1. 1.66:1 is simply an emperor's new clothes thing, over the years 1.66:1 has gotten associated with 'artiness' or 'europeanness' and thus has taken on a certain cachet. There's also decades and decades and decades of shitty misinformation about 1.66:1 which have added to the mix. I think it's purely a novelty thing, nothing more than being pretentious.

Or, perhaps more reasonably, Criterion harvested and prepped the film at 1.66:1 to give themselves full latitude for making a correct master. They brought in someone for approval, and they never even noticed it wasn't in the correct ratio, it just looked mostly right and they said okay. Or the approver knew it was 1.66:1 but figured since the margin of error was 1.66:1-1.85:1 that Criterion was still within bounds of being 'correct' even though they're at one extreme, and they erred on the side of exposing more frame area at less television resolution.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Or the approver knew it was 1.66:1 but figured since the margin of error was 1.66:1-1.85:1 that Criterion was still within bounds of being 'correct' even though they're at one extreme, and they erred on the side of exposing more frame area at less television resolution.

Interestingly, the typical crop applied by most TV overscan turns a 1.66:1 image into a 1.75:1 image

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The Jerry Lewis story was to illustrate how 1.66 was used as hard-matted protection for wider ratios.

 

[Crossplot]

Re the aspect ratios of the Polanski films, here are the studio production listings from Kine Weekly for both Repulsion and Cul-de-Sac (from 1964 and 1965 respectively). Apologies if they've come out a bit small in the attachments:

It's worth pointing out the above data did not come from the distributor or marketing department, but came from the technical department at Twickenham Studios. As you see, they've both been listed as 1.75. In the case of Cul-de-sac, it's very specific and follows the British Standard at the time (1.75 on 1.65 head room).

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

[Adam_S]

Interestingly, the typical crop applied by most TV overscan turns a 1.66:1 image into a 1.75:1 image

And since we were using Criterion as an example, Criterion is super concerned about overscan, which is why they forced us to live with substandard low resolution window boxed transfers on DVD (and still force this nonsense on us with the eclipse line), so perhaps Criterion is deliberately doing 1.66:1, knowing it is incorrect in order to get a more correct transfer to appear on the majority of televisions?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Criterion also gets ratios wrong, like Summertime.

Eh, I don't think the Summertime DVD is all that relevant to this particular conversation anymore. It's a disc that came out over a decade ago that was based on the Laserdisc that came out a decade before that.

I don't think so. The common misconception appears to be that everything in 50s/60s Britain was 1.66:1. You can ask pretty much any film buff and they'll tell you that.

Criterion clearly make that assumption as well, and they are the ones producing the transfers. We don't know the precise involvement of the directors, and I doubt very much they are actually being asked what aspect ratio their film should be in before production on the transfer/master begins.

They are not the ones making the mistake, Criterion are.

I have to disagree. Criterion seems to very specifically ask about AR when they have involvement from a director/DP/etc. Hence following the orders of Bertolucci/Storaro when it came to The Last Emperor, despite the conundrum it presented for them. Polanski seems very much involved based on Cul-de-sac being 1.66:1 while Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby are 1.85:1, all three with Director Approved status. Cul-de-sac not only was released theatrically one year later than Repulsion, but it was released later in the CC as well. I just don't see Criterion and/or Polanski being arbitrary about this. They may simply value certain factors beyond what the trades indicate.

 

[FoxyMulder]

And since we were using Criterion as an example, Criterion is super concerned about overscan, which is why they forced us to live with substandard low resolution window boxed transfers on DVD (and still force this nonsense on us with the eclipse line), so perhaps Criterion is deliberately doing 1.66:1, knowing it is incorrect in order to get a more correct transfer to appear on the majority of televisions?

HD televisions do not need overscan protection, that's a by product of the SD era and it should not happen with HD releases.

 

[Brandon Conway]

And remember, these transfers are being made for television.

No one is asking these old directors to approve a new print for projection, they're asking them, "does that look right on TV?" and getting a thumbs up.

Here's a cracked take on 1.66:1. 1.66:1 is simply an emperor's new clothes thing, over the years 1.66:1 has gotten associated with 'artiness' or 'europeanness' and thus has taken on a certain cachet. There's also decades and decades and decades of shitty misinformation about 1.66:1 which have added to the mix. I think it's purely a novelty thing, nothing more than being pretentious.

Or, perhaps more reasonably, Criterion harvested and prepped the film at 1.66:1 to give themselves full latitude for making a correct master. They brought in someone for approval, and they never even noticed it wasn't in the correct ratio, it just looked mostly right and they said okay. Or the approver knew it was 1.66:1 but figured since the margin of error was 1.66:1-1.85:1 that Criterion was still within bounds of being 'correct' even though they're at one extreme, and they erred on the side of exposing more frame area at less television resolution.

it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a lot a filmmakers are generally non-picky about 1.66-1.85. Remember, most 1.85:1 films are presented at 1.78:1 on home video nowadays anyway. The difference here is nowhere near the old VHS days of 2.35:1 being pan-and-scanned to 1.33:1 after all.

 

[Brandon Conway]

HD televisions do not need overscan protection, that's a by product of the SD era and it should not happen with HD releases.

A lot of HDTVs still overscan. Some have settings that remove the overscan, but since the factory settings are often with overscan I doubt most people will bother to adjust it. So while there is certainly far less overscan on an HDTV as compared to a 4:3 TV, it's still a factor that must be considered.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Re the aspect ratios of the Polanski films, here are the studio production listings from Kine Weekly for both Repulsion and Cul-de-Sac (from 1964 and 1965 respectively). Apologies if they've come out a bit small in the attachments:

Repulsion.jpg

culdesac.jpg

It's worth pointing out the above data did not come from the distributor or marketing department, but came from the technical department at Twickenham Studios. As you see, they've both been listed as 1.75. In the case of Cul-de-sac, it's very specific and follows the British Standard at the time (1.75 on 1.65 head room).

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

Thank you!

Great to see you posting again. Please continue to share your findings in the UK. They are most important and VERY much appreciated.

 

[Robert Crawford]

it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a lot a filmmakers are generally non-picky about 1.66-1.85. Remember, most 1.85:1 films are presented at 1.78:1 on home video nowadays anyway. The difference here is nowhere near the old VHS days of 2.35:1 being pan-and-scanned to 1.33:1 after all.

At times, I find the deep arguments regarding 1.66-1.85 a waste of time due to the marginal differences.