Aspect Ratio Documentation (4 Viewers)

[EddieLarkin]

Going by those dates, the other two titles that Studio Canal are releasing on Blu-ray, An Inspector Calls and Hobson's Choice, were shot before 17th December 2013 as they were classified by the BBFC by 27th November 1953 and 5th January 1954 respectively.

Yes, but remember that just because British Lion took until December to announce their new studio wide AR, it doesn't mean that productions that began before that date are not widescreen. An Inspector Calls most definitely is, for example. Check out 3:31 in this clip:



Hobson's Choice we're not so sure about. It's probably 1.37:1, despite it premiering a month after An Inspector Calls. As Bob has said many times, it's the start of production date that is important, not the premiere. I'm willing to bet that if Hobson's Choice is 1.37:1, it began production shortly before An Inspector Calls and thus had a slightly longer production period. The widescreen switchover will have come between the start of production of the two films.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Overlord may be preferred at 1.66 due to the extensive use of 1.33 stock footage.

 

[Alan Tully]

The Belles of St Trinians obtained its certificate on 23rd July 1954 and shooting had not begun by the beginning of January 1954 when it was written in the Cine Techinician's magazine
"Two more pictures, The Belles of St. Trinian's and The Brute are due to start before the end of January."
Our combined evidence clearly shows that this film was shot for a widescreen ratio of 1.8.




The Belles Of St Trinian's was on the telly in the UK a few days ago (in SD), it was in 4x3 & looked so wrong, even zoomed into 1:66 it still had a healthy amount of headroom. I wonder what aspect ratio the Blu-ray will be in?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Wow, that clip from AN INSPECTOR CALLS shows that it is obviously widescreen.

The UK transition is certainly in the fall of 1953, just a few months following the U.S. changeover.

How can the people mastering these films miss what is so easy to see?

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, but remember that just because British Lion took until December to announce their new studio wide AR, it doesn't mean that productions that began before that date are not widescreen. An Inspector Calls most definitely is, for example. Check out 3:31 in this clip: Hobson's Choice we're not so sure about. It's probably 1.37:1, despite it premiering a month after An Inspector Calls. As Bob has said many times, it's the start of production date that is important, not the premiere. I'm willing to bet that if Hobson's Choice is 1.37:1, it began production shortly before An Inspector Calls and thus had a slightly longer production period. The widescreen switchover will have come between the start of production of the two films.

Definitely widescreen with a common bottom. RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

Wow, that clip from AN INSPECTOR CALLS shows that it is obviously widescreen. The UK transition is certainly in the fall of 1953, just a few months following the U.S. changeover. How can the people mastering these films miss what is so easy to see?

Because their job is to do a transfer from a 1.37 element with no annotations as to desired aspect ratio.RAH

 

[EddieLarkin]

How can the people mastering these films miss what is so easy to see?

I think it simply has to do with the how people feel towards the 50s and 60s. 50s = old fashioned, stodgy, black and white, 1.37:1. 60s = new, funky, colourful, widescreen. So they draw the line between the two decades, ignoring of course all the many 'Scope productions from the 50s, where no argument over aspect ratio is necessary (well, almost).

I'm half surprised when a studio actually manage to give us a 50s black and white film in widescreen (say, Universal with Touch of Evil), but will then plough ahead with 1.37:1 for another black and white film from only a few years earlier (say Creature from the Black Lagoon, though in this case, more knowledgeable folks came to the rescue). Completely arbitrary methodology. It's shocking it took so long for someone to research this stuff definitively, and of course it had to be non-studio folk, and of course, some are still ignoring the truth.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Sorry to harp on this, but is there anyone in this community who has seen both the US and UK versions of A Big Country who can give us a definitive answer about the aspect ratio issue? I will buy the UK issue instantly if there's confirmation that the problem has been solved ... the stretched appearance of the US edition is truly abominable.
So far it seems we have heard from no-one who has actually seen and compared the two versions. Incredible ......
Screen grabs would be the perfect way to put this matter to rest.

 

[DVDvision]

I gave the way to fix Big Country stretch somewhere on this forum, but forgot where. Do a search, it's an easy fix

 

[bruceames]

I gave the way to fix Big Country stretch somewhere on this forum, but forgot where. Do a search, it's an easy fix

Here's the post. If it is such an easy fix then that increases the likelihood that they went ahead and did it before releasing it in the European market.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Finally, a reviewer who knows how to spot a widescreen film!

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s4451riot.html

 

[John Hodson]

Sorry to harp on this, but is there anyone in this community who has seen both the US and UK versions of A Big Country who can give us a definitive answer about the aspect ratio issue? I will buy the UK issue instantly if there's confirmation that the problem has been solved ... the stretched appearance of the US edition is truly abominable.
So far it seems we have heard from no-one who has actually seen and compared the two versions. Incredible ......
Screen grabs would be the perfect way to put this matter to rest.

A quick comparison of the DVD and BD 'caps here would seem to confirm that the French release is okay (that's assuming the French DVD was fine, at least...)

EDIT: ...and now I'm not so sure...

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

I find this thread very interesting as well as helpful to all of us. And it is good that it gets things corrected where corrections are, indeed, warranted. Two things that should not be left unaddressed, though, as the devil is in the detail and does not necessarily present itself openly right away:

[*]While the AR listings in the trade papers are mostly a very good indicator and guideline, we have found on several occasions that the studios/distributors announcements were not always "eye to eye" with the intentions of the makers on the respective sets. In some cases, like Universal, the first years were downright adventurous - with flat lens/full gate filmed features being presented in 1.37, while filmed with 1.75 or 1.85 in mind, but sent with a guide of 2.00:1 - even though the outcome was claustrophobic at best. I have seen annocuncements for BD releases that have - again - these particular feature(s) slated for 2.00:1. It is another extreme - and since time should have made things more clear (SABRINA !) it seems that there is still a lot of work to be done.
By the way: I find the original appoach of Richard Lester re: 1.66 on Criterion not altogether that problematic - I would have liked to see the outcome, first, before making my comments.
[*]Which brings me to my other, often ignored point in this discussion:
FRAMING
Here, as well as on other sites, comparisons are made on the basis of already fromatted transfers/masters. Without having the actual frame with its boundaries as reference, however, there is no way to conclusively tell whether the AR is accurate at factor XxY. Most transfers, especially older ones, are significantly zoomed in, and individually so, differing from shot to shot. New scans tend to be more tight to teh outer boundaries, which in turn poses problems if the material was "equipped" or copied with a soundtrack on the left later. In these cases the information there was NEVER meant to be seens as everything ion this space was ignored in the viewfinder.
[*]As for A BIG COUNTRY:
The Technirama 35mm Negative with its horizontal 8perf dimensions uses a different anamorpic factor (1.5) in the optics than the 35mm reduction and thus has to be treated differently, which was evidently not known to those who made that master. Even though the correct MAXIMUM Neg ratio is 2.25:1, the correct presentation should be 2.35:1 - by "sqeezing" the anamorphic scan digitally to 2.25 and matting top and bottom to 2.35. ABC is not the only picture this has happened to. Here, a lot of work seems necessary still, as well.
[/list]

 

[FoxyMulder]

A quick comparison of the DVD and BD 'caps here would seem to confirm that the French release is okay (that's assuming the French DVD was fine, at least...)

EDIT: ...and now I'm not so sure...

If someone can give me some timestamps for the scenes featured in those caps i can check my corrected version against them and give everyone a definitive answer. I just need a timestamp for one of the scenes.

:EDIT: Okay i have made a comparison with one shot, that French version is not correct and it is distorted, link below.

Mouse on the image is the fixed edition, mouse off the image is the French distorted one.

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/bigcountry_comparison.html

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you for your comments, Torsten.

So far as A HARD DAYS NIGHT, the instructions for 1.75:1 are very clearly printed on the original 35mm elements. There's no reason to believe that 1.66 is preferable.

Concerning Universal, when they shut down the studio in May 1953, it was clear that 2:1 would be the new studio house ratio when production commenced on BORDER RIVER. However, at some point in the early months of 1954, they began composing some black and white titles for 1.85:1. I'm not sure why and I've poured through the studio production files from those months in search of an answer.

In June 1953, they adapted 1.85 for their musical shorts. This is obvious upon viewing but again, no paperwork has been found to explain the reasons.

Warner Bros. used primarily 1.75 and 1.85 for their features but their widescreen shorts are 1.66. Again, no documentation has been found.

The search goes on!

 

[bgart13]

Have Hammer's NIGHT CREATURES (aka CAPTAIN CLEGG) and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA been brought up before? If not - Bob, do you have a clippings for them with the ratio? Thanks.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'll take a look for NIGHT CREATURES...

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Thanks Foxy for your detective work on the French version of The Big Country. That would make it seem there's no correct version out there yet ...
what a sad way to treat such a great movie. You'd think someone somewhere would do it right ....

 

[FoxyMulder]

Thanks Foxy for your detective work on the French version of The Big Country. That would make it seem there's no correct version out there yet ...
what a sad way to treat such a great movie. You'd think someone somewhere would do it right ....

If you translate the French site from where the screencap comes they all think it looks normal, i think MGM haven't had enough complaints, too many people cannot see the issue and think it's a great release, i would say that since the French edition is distorted then i highly doubt the UK edition is fixed but you never know for sure until someone buys it.

Even reviewers for various sites have missed the issue, indeed did Mr Harris correct his review for this site. ?

 

[moviebuff75]

Was the D-150 process ever credited onscreen in "The Bible: In the Beginning?" I've never seen it, but was wondering if the 70mm prints featured the credit.