Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[haineshisway]

There are a couple of extreme close-ups that I'd have to see matted, but other than those there is not one shot in this film that doesn't look like it was framed for widescreen. And, as mentioned, I saw it repeatedly in 1.85

 

[theonemacduff]

I wondered about that too. I took some of the Beaver caps and reframed them in Photoshop, assuming a centre mask (not sure if that is the correct term), and most of them looked dandy at 1.85.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

That got me in the mood, so I just threw this one in to see how it looks. Now, just guess which company is disabling the Blu-ray zoom button. Go on, take a guess. I can zoom to a full 1.78:1 using the TV's limited zoom function, but that noticeably cuts a little off the sides. So there's no enjoying the nice zooming gradations of the Oppo player on Criterion "full frame" Blu-rays.

Drat. I don't even really have the option to zoom in TV because my TV assumes that all HDMI sources are correct at full frame 1.78, and my Sony player doesn't offer any sort of zoom either.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Olive is releasing a BD of The Big Combo on September 24th. I hope they don't screw the pooch by not releasing it in 1.85.

 

[Douglas R]

There was a lot of contentious posting about the aspect ratio of Lord of the Flies - Criterion's transfer being full frame and supervised by one of the film's camera operators who was also one of the film's editors. Now, we all know that the film was not ever shown full frame, at least in the United States of America, and most likely anywhere else because the majority of theaters no longer had the ability to show full frame. It played here in 1.85 - what it played in in England is anyone's guess, but what's not a guess is it wasn't full frame - so 1.66 or 1.75 or 1.85 would be the other options.

I never saw Lord of the Flies (it wasn't widely distributed) so unfortunately cannot say how it was presented in the UK but it wouldn't have been shown 1.37 in 1963, other than possibly at the National Film Theatre - which was about the only place I ever saw films in that ratio.

 

[Yorkshire]

I'm sure everyone will appreciate it if we bring this thread away from subjective opinion, and back on topic to the documentation that Bob and his team have so diligently uncovered.

To quote one of the documernts in Bob's article (I certainly hope that's allowed):

"It is emphasised that every film should be capable of being projected at either the basic aspect ratio (1.374:1) or the wide aspect ratio (1.65 to 1.85:1)."

If Bob's documentation is correct, every 1.37:1 film from this era should still look fine cropped to 1.85:1, so the fact that no heads are cut off at that wider ratio is apparently no indication that it wasn't composed for 1.37:1.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

Olive is releasing a BD of The Big Combo on September 24th. I hope they don't screw the pooch by not releasing it in 1.85.

1.78:1:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/305488-coming-soon-from-olive-films/page-91#entry3962659

 

[Crossplot]

I'm sure everyone will appreciate it if we bring this thread away from subjective opinion, and back on topic to the documentation that Bob and his team have so diligently uncovered.

To quote one of the documernts in Bob's article (I certainly hope that's allowed):

"It is emphasised that every film should be capable of being projected at either the basic aspect ratio (1.374:1) or the wide aspect ratio (1.65 to 1.85:1)."

If Bob's documentation is correct, every 1.37:1 film from this era should still look fine cropped to 1.85:1, so the fact that no heads are cut off at that wider ratio is apparently no indication that it wasn't composed for 1.37:1.

Steve W

Steve,

Thank you for recognising the importance of documentation. It is very important regarding your claim that “every 1.37:1 film from this era should still look fine cropped to 1.85:1”.

The evidence you have used to support your claim is a quote from a Kine Weekly article announcing the draft of the British Standard. It appears you have misunderstood the content of the article. It’s worth highlighting the final version of the Standard would eventually be published in October 1956 as BS 2784. I’ve got a copy of the Standard and I can confirm there is NOTHING in it that recommends composing for 1.37 (whilst merely protecting for 1.85). Here is a direct quote (the bold is my emphasis):

“Pictures for wide aspect ratios shall be so composed as to allow of their being projected at any aspect ratio from 1:1.65 to 1.1.85, inclusive, the optimum composition being for the ratio 1:1.75.”

To put it simply, the Standard is not applicable to the composition of 1.37 films and, unfortunately, cannot be used as evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Steve,

Thank you for recognising the importance of documentation. It is very important regarding your claim that “every 1.37:1 film from this era should still look fine cropped to 1.85:1”.

The evidence you have used to support your claim is a quote from a Kine Weekly article announcing the draft of the British Standard. It appears you have misunderstood the content of the article. It’s worth highlighting the final version of the Standard would eventually be published in October 1956 as BS 2784. I’ve got a copy of the Standard and I can confirm there is NOTHING in it that recommends composing for 1.37 (whilst merely protecting for 1.85). Here is a direct quote (the bold is my emphasis):

“Pictures for wide aspect ratios shall be so composed as to allow of their being projected at any aspect ratio from 1:1.65 to 1.1.85, inclusive, the optimum composition being for the ratio 1:1.75.”

To put it simply, the Standard is not applicable to the composition of 1.37 films and, unfortunately, cannot be used as evidence to support your assertion.

Thank you for clarifying what the true intent of that quote was when it was published back in 1956.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm sure everyone will appreciate it if we bring this thread away from subjective opinion, and back on topic to the documentation that Bob and his team have so diligently uncovered.

To quote one of the documernts in Bob's article (I certainly hope that's allowed):

Is Steve moderating this topic now?

 

[Adam_S]

There was a lot of contentious posting about the aspect ratio of Lord of the Flies - Criterion's transfer being full frame and supervised by one of the film's camera operators who was also one of the film's editors. Now, we all know that the film was not ever shown full frame, at least in the United States of America, and most likely anywhere else because the majority of theaters no longer had the ability to show full frame. It played here in 1.85 - what it played in in England is anyone's guess, but what's not a guess is it wasn't full frame - so 1.66 or 1.75 or 1.85 would be the other options. So, what are we to surmise when one of the film's operators and one of its editors make this decision on a film that is fifty years old. Would Peter Brook, even making a low-budget independent film, purposely shoot his film in a format that wouldn't be shown anywhere except TV? Would the film's producer allow the film to be made in a ratio that could not be shown? I saw this film twelve times back in 1963 in my local theater that showed these kinds of films back then - in 1.85, which is all they could show aside from scope.

But now having watched it, the evidence is clearly on the screen - there is no shot on view that wouldn't frame nicely at 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85, whereas mostly every shot in the film looks unbalanced in full frame. The real convincer comes early on when the camera does the long tracking shot showing each of the boys on the beach. You'll note how the operator keeps adjusting the height of the frame to be consistent. That says everything you need it to say. In full frame those moves make no sense. Matted, they make perfect sense. I'm sorry, but if they can do three versions of On the Waterfront (none of which are correct, BTW, since the image was zoomed), why can't they present Lord of the Flies the way it was shown in theaters and then this other thing?

My theory is the camera operator in question only has an old TV, not a widescreen TV and he figured he wanted it to fill his screen.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Is Steve moderating this topic now?

No, no, no, no! It's mine, it's all mine!

 

[Mike Frezon]

And you are welcome to it!

 

[haineshisway]

Steve,

Thank you for recognising the importance of documentation. It is very important regarding your claim that “every 1.37:1 film from this era should still look fine cropped to 1.85:1”.

The evidence you have used to support your claim is a quote from a Kine Weekly article announcing the draft of the British Standard. It appears you have misunderstood the content of the article. It’s worth highlighting the final version of the Standard would eventually be published in October 1956 as BS 2784. I’ve got a copy of the Standard and I can confirm there is NOTHING in it that recommends composing for 1.37 (whilst merely protecting for 1.85). Here is a direct quote (the bold is my emphasis):

“Pictures for wide aspect ratios shall be so composed as to allow of their being projected at any aspect ratio from 1:1.65 to 1.1.85, inclusive, the optimum composition being for the ratio 1:1.75.”

To put it simply, the Standard is not applicable to the composition of 1.37 films and, unfortunately, cannot be used as evidence to support your assertion.

This is what Steve does and most people are thoroughly tired of it. I'm sure he's a nice enough fellow, but as someone has already pointed out, he is never wrong and just quotes selectively, misinterprets (as has been beautifully pointed out in your post), and has little to no understanding of film or formats. The article quoted was an EARLY article and by 1963 everything had been widescreen for almost a decade. There is no confusion about Lord of the Flies - it was not EVER shown during its initial release anywhere in Academy. It's really that simple. The filmmakers knew how their film would be shown, and unless they were making it to be shown in one theater in London and not anywhere else then they framed their film for the way it would be projected.

 

[theonemacduff]

Here's one of the Beaver's screencaps with ratio lines marked, accurately as I can make 'em.

Piggy was always my favourite, in the book and the film.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Here's one of the Beaver's screencaps with ratio lines marked, accurately as I can make 'em.

Lord of the Flies mask lines.jpg

Piggy was always my favourite, in the book and the film.

Problem with that example is mask lines are usually not dead center as you have them.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If not dead center, then where?

 

[haineshisway]

That shot frames perfectly at either of those ratios.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Problem with that example is mask lines are usually not dead center as you have them.

SInce so many have said these lot were "amateur filmmakers" to assert the 1.37 argument perhaps their naivety led them to crop center rather than common top...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I don't believe the early UK widescreen common top approach for framing was used by that point.