Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

I used to feel that way, but after running HORROR OF DRACULA in all three ratios (with an original 35mm print) you suddenly realize how perfect it looks at 1.75:1, as the filmmakers intended.

A little makes a big difference.

 

[theonemacduff]

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

Steve W

Classic error in logic here, mistaking the particular for the general. All this shows is the involvement of a director in one particular case, thus, it does not speak to directors in general and their involvement in Criterion releases. A similar logic problem is involved in the initial statement of the case, that is, the assumption that Criterion's selection of titles can be used as a guide to the generality of British releases of the period. This strikes me as, at best, dubious, as they are a boutique house releasing acclaimed or special titles, rather than catalogue titles (for example, the Carry On flicks; what AR were they released in, one wonders?) I think Bob's conversation with Jerry Lewis -- and note that Polanski says exactly the same thing -- kind of settles the point about where, this late in the day, the 1.66 AR comes from: it comes from canny directors protecting their intended 1.85 image. QED.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I used to feel that way, but after running HORROR OF DRACULA in all three ratios (with an original 35mm print) you suddenly realize how perfect it looks at 1.75:1, as the filmmakers intended.

A little makes a big difference.

No offense, Bob, but I'm not sold yet. One day, I'll pull out the On the Waterfront BD and spend all day going through it. Perhaps, I'll change my mind then.

Edit: I do acknowledged that certain films framed a certain way by the DP and Director could influence further differences between 1.66 to 1.85 ratios.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

May I suggest you base your decision on screening an original 35mm print instead?

If you're ever in the New York area, I will be happy to accommodate. We can run it to SMPTE specs at 1.37, 1.66 and 1.85.

 

[Robert Crawford]

May I suggest you base your decision on screening an original 35mm print instead?

If you're ever in the New York area, I will be happy to accommodate. We can run it 1.37, 1.66 and 1.85.

Bob,

I might take you up on that offer when I come home for a visit.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Any time, Robert.

Oh, I can run it in 1.75 as well!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Classic error in logic here, mistaking the particular for the general. All this shows is the involvement of a director in one particular case, thus, it does not speak to directors in general and their involvement in Criterion releases. A similar logic problem is involved in the initial statement of the case, that is, the assumption that Criterion's selection of titles can be used as a guide to the generality of British releases of the period. This strikes me as, at best, dubious, as they are a boutique house releasing acclaimed or special titles, rather than catalogue titles (for example, the Carry On flicks; what AR were they released in, one wonders?) I think Bob's conversation with Jerry Lewis -- and note that Polanski says exactly the same thing -- kind of settles the point about where, this late in the day, the 1.66 AR comes from: it comes from canny directors protecting their intended 1.85 image. QED.

Thank you very much, Jon Paul. You're a voice of reason.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Any time, Robert.

Oh, I can run it in 1.75 as well!

Bob,

I also will acknowledged that the differences in those aspect ratios would probably be more pronounced in a movie theater than it is at home for most people. Which is my main point about why I think for home theater, the deep arguments are time consuming, but with little reward in your viewing pleasure.

 

[FoxyMulder]

The Carry On Films get shown on British TV at 1.78:1, thus i suspect they were shot 1.85:1, or at least some them were.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Wow, eternal thanks to Crossplot for the Kine Weekly scans. I didn't think this matter would be put to rest so quickly. And not only this matter, but a good deal of any future British AR debates; it's right there folks "1.75:1 with 1.65 head room".

Re Criterion and over scanning worries, it's possible that it indeed may be there policy to go with 1.66:1 when the actual AR is 1.75:1 (as pointless as this practice these days), as they were clearly aware of Repulsion's correct AR:

http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/05853/CC1387L/Repulsion:-Special-Edition-(1965)

They released it 1.75:1 back in 1995!

They did the same with a number of other British films:

http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/03230/CC1234L/Droe-No:-Special-Edition-(1962)
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/09368/CC1290L/From-Russia-with-Love-(1963)
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/09369/CC1291L/Goldfinger-(1964)

Back then, they even got some UA titles correct!

http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/04056/CC1286L/Some-Like-It-Hot-(1959)

 

[Brandon Conway]

Criterion's packaging for Repulsion may say 1.85:1, but chances are it is actually 1.78:1 (I don't have the disc, so I wouldn't know for sure). Almost all 1.85:1 listings are actually 1.78:1. It's just what is done.

 

[Charles Smith]

Criterion's packaging for Repulsion may say 1.85:1, but chances are it is actually 1.78:1 (I don't have the disc, so I wouldn't know for sure). Almost all 1.85:1 listings are actually 1.78:1. It's just what is done.

The Repulsion packaging says 1.66:1 (I was just watching this recently) and that's how it displays on my screen -- which is set to zero overscan.

 

[haineshisway]

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

Um, Steve, why don't you go back and read my post and point out the part where I said anyone was a forgetful old filmmaker. You won't find it because I didn't say it, someone else did. There's no flexilogic whatever that is in MY post. Read it - understand it - others have made similar points. Here is the part you think you were referring to - just to save you the trouble:

"I'm guessing that Sidney Lumet watched a bit of the transfer, liked it and approved it - I would doubt he even KNEW it was 1.66 on his TV. And I'm equally sure there are other cases where directors simply looked at a bit of a transfer and gave permission to sign. I'm equally sure that some of these director approved editions were done in the era of 4.3 TVs, like the Kubricks."
Oops. Nothing there about old forgetful filmmakers, is there? You want to bring me into the conversation then don't ascribe others' remarks to me just so you can gloat about something I never said. Really. You can apologize now

 

[Brandon Conway]

The Repulsion packaging says 1.66:1 (I was just watching this recently) and that's how it displays on my screen -- which is set to zero overscan.

Huh. You're right - the packaging does say 1.66:1 now that I've seen pictures online. I was going by the website, which says 1.85:1. http://www.criterion.com/films/404-repulsion

 

[Vincent_P]

Criterion's packaging for Repulsion may say 1.85:1, but chances are it is actually 1.78:1 (I don't have the disc, so I wouldn't know for sure). Almost all 1.85:1 listings are actually 1.78:1. It's just what is done.

ROSEMARY'S BABY is actually 1.85:1. It has very small black bars but they are definitely there.

Vincent

 

[Rick2001ad]

I'm looking for an OAR for the 1968 Disney film Blackbeard's Ghost. I want to say it should be 1.75:1, but I haven't screened it since the mid-eighties (outside of the 1.33:1 DVD release), can anyone confirm or set me straight please?

Rick

 

[Yorkshire]

Classic error in logic here, mistaking the particular for the general. All this shows is the involvement of a director in one particular case, thus, it does not speak to directors in general and their involvement in Criterion releases

On the contrary, it's mistaking the general (an article on a recommendation published in 1955) for the particular (any film released over the following 15 years) that's the issue.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

Huh. You're right - the packaging does say 1.66:1 now that I've seen pictures online. I was going by the website, which says 1.85:1. http://www.criterion.com/films/404-repulsion

Thanks to you both.

That's now a 5th film from the era in non-scope widescreen, with all 5 in 1.66:1. And, as we've seen, two are Polanski films and we know (from Eddie's post) that Polanski insists that if it's got his name on it as 'director approved', then it's the correct ratio - and yes, he's fussy enough to distinguish between 1.66:1, 1.75:1 and 1.85:1.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

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

I don't totally agree, but I certainly have a lot of sympathy for that.

And when it comes to 1.66:1 vs 1.75:1 it really is very close.

Best way to see how close? Look at the Criterion short of the aspect ratio of On the Waterfront. In one part they show an open matter frame with both 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 guidelines superimposed.

Now imagine a 1.75:1 guide which would pretty much split the two.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

And remember, these transfers are being made for television.

Yes, 1.78:1 television.

If a film was made for 1.75:1 and the TV is 1.78:1, why would anyone think opening up to 1.66:1 would look better?

Steve W