Aspect Ratio Documentation (5 Viewers)

[Doug Bull]

Now I'm confused, or the Superscope credit maybe just a newspaper advertising mistake.

At least here's proof that "Man Without A Star" was run Widescreen (Panoramic Screen) most likely in accordance to the Studio's instructions.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I'm sorry but why in the H... Would a cinematographer and director would just forget the aspect ratio for last few years and go for open frame. Commentary or not it just does not make sense. Not one bit.

The impression I'm getting is that they always wanted full frame but couldn't get it until the advent of home video. But you'd have to ask them at this stage (though listening to the commentary in full yourself may reveal more answers).

 

[John Hodson]

Some weeks ago, I played the DVD in an approximation of 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 and from the title sequence on in it obviously *does* work wide (though the caveat here is that I may not be seeing the whole of the full frame to zoom into), but I have to say that also having watched the BD in 1.37:1 that I prefer it so; the frame is always kept busy with very little egregious headroom. It was never a wildly commercial project from the off.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Doug: I believe that's a typo. So far as I recall, Universal never utilized Superscope.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Projectionists will appreciate this information from July 1956.

They took great care to insure that all of the intended aspect ratios were projected properly. These were dedicated craftsmen who cared about their audience and took pride in putting on a good show.

 

[haineshisway]

I'm sorry but why in the H... Would a cinematographer and director would just forget the aspect ratio for last few years and go for open frame. Commentary or not it just does not make sense. Not one bit.

I don't like things that happen fifty years after a release, it's that simple. Minimally, why would it have been a problem to include a widescreen presentation as well? That's the way the film was shown, they knew that's the way it was going to be shown and what they may prefer forty or fifty years after they made the film is just weird to me. But providing both would have at least given us what was shown in theaters (and I'm sorry, but given us what was FRAMED by them to be shown in theaters).

 

[John Hodson]

Yes; I agree with that. Every time.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I haven't seen this but if it's true the camera is panning to keep the action in widescreen safe, that indicates they may have been more careful with framing then they are remembering.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Regardless of their memory about keeping things widescreen safe for theatrical distribution, if looking at the film now they see the 1.37 presentation as superior for their film then this is a case of artist preference --> industry standards. It does happen with good reason from time to time, and while I know some will cry foul with good reasoning it's definitely less egregious a situation when opening up to more of the image (Lord of the Flies, or to mention a more contemporary example, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) as opposed to cropping down the image (The Last Emperor).

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'd feel better about it if the Director said it rather than the editor.The other thing you glean is that the operators were given a lot of freedom to frame, since they wanted the doc feeling - so perhaps you had one or two of those guys who had gotten the "reframe for widescreen" thing in their muscle memory so the operator might have been doing it without specific instruction from the director. This is definitely an odd duck case, but I'd still rather have the WS since it's what was in theaters.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

In the early 1990's, I did close to 100 interviews for our book, "Abbott and Costello in Hollywood." I spoke with people that were going back 50 years in their memory and sharing stories of events that happened on the set.

The problem? Their stories did not always match what was written in the daily production reports from the studio files. Those reports were prepared every day for the studio executives and told in great detail what happened on the set, warts and all.

In some cases, the interviewees had put on rose-colored glasses to minimize the events. In other cases, they exaggerated stories to alter their own involvement in certain incidents.

Were their memories faulty or were they revising history?

In this case of LOTF, are the participants recalling the events accurately? Are they suggesting the "documentary approach" to support their preference now for a full-frame transfer?

Who knows for sure but if the camera movement does indeed pan to keep actors safe in widescreen, that carries a lot of weight so far as original intent.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I'd feel better about it if the Director said it rather than the editor.

My understanding is that the commentary has the director, producer, director of photography and editor.

 

[Vincent_P]

It sounds to me like Brooks and co. did a similar thing as Gus Van Sant and Harris Savides when making ELEPHANT and LAST DAYS- they "protected" for 1.85:1 but the intended/preferred aspect ratio was 1.37:1.

Vincent

 

[haineshisway]

It sounds to me like Brooks and co. did a similar thing as Gus Van Sant and Harris Savides when making ELEPHANT and LAST DAYS- they "protected" for 1.85:1 but the intended/preferred aspect ratio was 1.37:1.

Vincent

So Mr. Van Sant was making a film for television then? Because you don't "protect" for 1.85 if you're making a motion picture for motion picture projection in a motion picture theater, which is, by the way, what they were doing. If they were making a movie for cable or TV by all means shoot it any way you like - but they weren't.

 

[haineshisway]

In the early 1990's, I did close to 100 interviews for our book, "Abbott and Costello in Hollywood." I spoke with people that were going back 50 years in their memory and sharing stories of events that happened on the set.

The problem? Their stories did not always match what was written in the daily production reports from the studio files. Those reports were prepared every day for the studio executives and told in great detail what happened on the set, warts and all.

In some cases, the interviewees had put on rose-colored glasses to minimize the events. In other cases, they exaggerated stories to alter their own involvement in certain incidents.

Were their memories faulty or were they revising history?

In this case of LOTF, are the participants recalling the events accurately? Are they suggesting the "documentary approach" to support their preference now for a full-frame transfer?

Who knows for sure but if the camera movement does indeed pan to keep actors safe in widescreen, that carries a lot of weight so far as original intent.

Certainly in the long tracking shot of the boys on the beach near the beginning of the film the camera, as I mentioned elsewhere, is doing exactly that.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Can any film-makers reading this topic please explain how you compose a shot for 1.37 and protect for 1.85?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I think it's the same general philosophy as what's happening in TV these days.The primary frame is 1.78, but you can't allow anything essential outside the 1.33 portion in the middle that is going to older 4x3 sets.With a 1.37 frame as the basis, you're just making sure that nothing critical hits the upper or lower edges which will get masked off while retaining the tall frame as your compositional basis.It's not a way I'd ever want to work as a director but it's certainly possible. Bruce, I think the Van Sant films are definitely 1.33 composed, if you compare the images, but Gus is a big boy and knew that they wouldn't mostly screen in theaters that way. He just did what he wanted in spite of it. It's the same with films like The Artist or Soderbergh's The Good German. You never know just how much cooperation you will get working in a non-standard ratio but if it's important enough to the aesthetic of the project you do it anyway.

 

[Gary16]

I think it's the same general philosophy as what's happening in TV these days.The primary frame is 1.78, but you can't allow anything essential outside the 1.33 portion in the middle that is going to older 4x3 sets.With a 1.37 frame as the basis, you're just making sure that nothing critical hits the upper or lower edges which will get masked off while retaining the tall frame as your compositional basis.It's not a way I'd ever want to work as a director but it's certainly possible.
Virtually all programming shot for television at 1.78 is cropped center cut on 4:3 sets so there's no change in top and bottom, only the sides. When not center cut the program is letterboxed at 1:78 in a 4:3 frame causing black bars at top and bottom on 4:3 sets but showing all of the picture width. Older programs shot 4:3 prior to the new standard for TV are still shown 4:3 with black sections left and right. Some have been blown up to 1:78 ("Seinfeld is an example) mostly keeping the top the same but losing information on the bottom (although in many cases there is some manipulation when action is needed to be seen in the bottom of the frame)

 

[Moe Dickstein]

My understanding is that the commentary has the director, producer, director of photography and editor.

Yes but only the editor supervised the transfer. Feil is "a" cameraman but he was not the DP of this film

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks, Moe!