Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[Brandon Conway]

While not on the same level, Bob's learned research and the indisputable facts it yields have also been doubted and second guessed In this very thread and elsewhere on HTF, even by self-proclaimed "experts" and those who bask in the limelight of projecting an image that they know it all. At the point where the truth can no longer be denied, they fall back on the old justification of "personal preference."

The difference as I see it is that 99% of the time we want to get it right over here, and as time has gone on we've seen how Bob's research and documentation has proven to be the most reliable information. So, while in the past things were more heated, they've kinda hit a groove and rhythm.

This doesn't mean we don't have our disagreements, or even questions when an odd title pops up (Lord of the Flies being a keen example of an odd production circumstance that took some time to nail down).

And earlier in this thread's history, even when disagreements were more heated, I don't think they ever were so disdainful and petty as certain remarks over there.

 

[DVDvision]

Debate is good. Locking up discussions threads, that's fascism. That's one way of thinking and no questioning allowed.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

I just find it bizarre that so many "cinephiles" want to keep their head in the sand simply because they've only seen the films on television. They want to reject the directors original intent and keep recycling open-matte versions. Even conclusive proof that a world premiere was widescreen is not sufficient because they saw a full-frame version in a theater a decade later.

Somebody posted this comment on another site regarding the widescreen Quatermass films:

Do the same people have a problem watching a color copy of a film that played on TV in black and white when they were a child?

Then there's the extremely narrow mindset that yields a comment like this:


Aye aye aye...

I can understand why someone may want to continue watching the Quatermass films in 4:3.
The fact you ain't got a clue what ratio they were in when they first appeared means your argument is almost worthless.
You keep going on about the directors intent which would be all well and good if you actually knew what it was.
Surely if you watch in 1.85:1 when the director intended it to be 1.66 you're no better than someone viewing in 4:3.
If you knew for sure 100% what the ratio was then it may be worth banging on about it - but you don't so it isn't
Despite your paperwork you're still guessing - educated guesses perhaps but guesses nonetheless

 

[haineshisway]

I can understand why someone may want to continue watching the Quatermass films in 4:3.
The fact you ain't got a clue what ratio they were in when they first appeared means your argument is almost worthless.
You keep going on about the directors intent which would be all well and good if you actually knew what it was.
Surely if you watch in 1.85:1 when the director intended it to be 1.66 you're no better than someone viewing in 4:3.
If you knew for sure 100% what the ratio was then it may be worth banging on about it - but you don't so it isn't
Despite your paperwork you're still guessing - educated guesses perhaps but guesses nonetheless

The one thing he knows is what ratio it ISN'T. And that would be the Academy ratio, which is obvious in every frame of the film.

 

[John Hodson]

We know QX was composed wide; let's set aside indisputable fact, common sense tells you that.

We know that, guidelines to cinematographers having been laid down, that it could have been 1.75:1, safe for 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. Yes, it might have been 1.66:1 - what we know is that by the year of release, a tiny percentage of the overall cinema audience may have seen it full. A very tiny percentage. We also know that it was intended for projection at 1.85:1 in the US as revealed in the trades.

Your assertion that Bob hasn't a clue is without foundation, as is 'if you watch in 1.85:1 when the director intended it to be 1.66 you're no better than someone viewing in 4:3', because this is - first and foremost - a film composed for the widescreen.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

The one thing he knows is what ratio it ISN'T. And that would be the Academy ratio, which is obvious in every frame of the film.

We also know it wasn't 2.35:1 , or 2.55:1 .
Great .
As James Coburn says to Charles Bronson in The Great Escape - "What bloody good is that".

The key thing is that we keep being told we shouldn't watch QX in 4:3 .
I'm more than happy to watch in widescreen but until someone finds out what ratio it's supposed to be then any widescreen version in the wrong ratio is as equally worthless as a 4:3 version

 

[bluelaughaminute]

We know QX was composed wide; let's set aside indisputable fact, common sense tells you that.

We know that, guidelines to cinematographers having been laid down, that it could have been 1.75:1, safe for 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. Yes, it might have been 1.66:1 - what we know is that by the year of release, a tiny percentage of the overall cinema audience may have seen it full. A very tiny percentage. We also know that it was intended for projection at 1.85:1 in the US as revealed in the trades.

Your assertion that Bob hasn't a clue is without foundation, as is 'if you watch in 1.85:1 when the director intended it to be 1.66 you're no better than someone viewing in 4:3', because this is - first and foremost - a film composed for the widescreen.

Does Bob know what ratio QX was filmed for ?
Answer - no he doesn't.

To counter your usual quote John , there's no more to say.
Until someone can prove categorically what ratio it's in the constant whinging about the 4:3 version is pointless.
If it's that important use your zoom feature albeit with a slight loss of quality

Regardless of whether it's filmed for widescreen- surely the point is to watch it in the right ratio.
As things stand nobody knows what that is . Guesses are still guesses. Watching a 1.66 film in 1.85 is just as wrong as watching in 4:3. The important thing is they are the wrong ratio . Just because 1.85 is closer to 1.66 is irrelevant - its still wrong

 

[John Hodson]

Have you tried watching it wide; I don't mean the God awful R2 disc, but the MGM master?

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Somebody made a point earlier about the inadequacies of Studio Canal and how they should employ someone like Bob.
Lets assume they did.
Bob is there along side the SC employess as they try to work out the ratio for QX.
After the SC people have their say Bob chimes in with "It should be widescreen".
The SC people reply "Ok Bob we'll do it in widescreen if that's what it's supposed to be - what ratio is it in?"
Bob- "Ah well - I actually don't know for sure".

Not a situation I can see involving any level of respect from SC for an outsiders knowledge . In fact it sounds like much the sort of thing we could imagine happening with the current people who run Hammer - except in that case SC actually took notice of them . And see what responses their guesses got from the fans .

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Have you tried watching it wide; I don't mean the God awful R2 disc, but the MGM master?

I've not viewed the Oz disc all the way through but when I do I won't be zooming it to a ratio that might just be correct.
I've seen Star Trek TOS episodes ( and other films and tv shows ) cropped for widescreen and while you can often get away with it without losing too much picture information its not something I like.
Thunderbirds gets away with it too even though I know that was made for 4:3.
Unless we know for sure what ratio QX was intended to be I have no interest in guessing with my zoom settings.
Surely the bottom line is - what's the point of doing it unless you know the right ratio?

 

[John Hodson]

I see...

 

[Brandon Conway]

Speaking only for myself, if a title is obviously NOT intended for 1.33:1 but rather unsure widescreen at anywhere from 1.66-1.85 I'd much rather have the release at 1.66 than 1.33. Why NOT be closer to the correct AR?

 

[Douglas R]

I came across the following piece from an article in the December 1953 issue of Kinematograph Weekly in which studios and distributors were asked about their release plans for the coming year for the UK. Naturally at that time the studios enthusiastically gave details of their plans for widescreen films. All, that is, apart from Regent film Distributors - no I’ve never heard of them either; and with good reason when their MD gives his enlightened, forward thinking opinion about widescreen. I wonder if the reference to “wider success” was intentional!


Regent Film Distributors holds the opinion - backed by product and experience - that films from Europe will, in the coming year, achieve a far wider success than ever before, because they are on the up-grade in originality, story and technique.
It will be delivering a minimum of 15 films including features in Ferraria Color, Technicolor and Gevacolor. Managing Director James Wilson says that that the plans are completely to disregard 3D, wide-screen and CinemaScope, irrespective of any immediate success they may have achieve. He adds: We reiterate our full confidence: first in excellent box-office attractions that the public will wish to see; and second, our faith in British exhibitors whom we do not expect to be forced into spending huge sums on novel contraptions whose popularity is uncertain, and also because it might suit the American market in its fear of television.

 

[Adam_S]

I think it's because dumb people have a problem taking in new information and reevaluating their original conclusion. Their first thoughts on a topic were and always will be right so they dig in and refuse to acknowledge anything that challenges or could change their original opinion (clearly, this is a problem that extends far beyond the ARs of movies). I'm a dope but I don't have a problem with getting new info and saying "Oops, I was wrong all that time" so I don't understand why other people find it so hard to do.

that forum illustrates the same thing happening that is observed in studies that show if you give anti-vaxxers information contrary to their position, they come away believing even more strongly in their position (and then their children go around spreading plague to everyone else's children).

Give them aspect ratio information contrary to their original belief and they will cling to their original belief all the more fervently instead of considering the information.

or they give us that lovely quote of maybe we should "teach the controversy." which is a favorite recourse of other anti-fact groups. :-p

 

[Brandon Conway]

Watching the new Cosmos, and seeing how often the scientific community has done the same thing to people who have made breakthrough discoveries, that reaction doesn't surprise as much as it disappoints. *sigh* Humans...

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Speaking only for myself, if a title is obviously NOT intended for 1.33:1 but rather unsure widescreen at anywhere from 1.66-1.85 I'd much rather have the release at 1.66 than 1.33. Why NOT be closer to the correct AR?

Because its likely the forums would then be filled with whingers complaining the film is in the wrong widescreen ratio.
Practically every Hammer Bluray has someone complaining that the ratio is incorrect - I can see why studios perhaps can't be bothered , knowing they'll get complaints whatever they do

 

[Brandon Conway]

Because its likely the forums would then be filled with whingers complaining the film is in the wrong widescreen ratio.Practically every Hammer Bluray has someone complaining that the ratio is incorrect - I can see why studios perhaps can't be bothered , knowing they'll get complaints whatever they do

And I can see why many can't be bothered to purchase those releases.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[bluelaughaminute]

And I can see why many can't be bothered to purchase those releases.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

Yes but not buying them is basically cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Not buying the QX or The Brides of Dracula because the ratio is slightly wrong seems rather stupid. It may be years before these movies get a reissue and in the meantime I watch the films in HD.
Who loses out ?

Its not as if we're talking 2.35:1 cropped to 4:3 like the old days - that was worth complaining about and in most cases the original ratio was something people didn't need to estimate

 

[Bob Furmanek]

To answer your question about what we would do if the ratio isn't documented, I'll explain how we handled the issue with our 3-D restoration of DRAGONFLY SQUADRON.

The film was released in February 1954, shortly before the trades began listing the recommended ratios. There are no surviving production files and no surviving reel bands or projection data.

We had three strikes against us.

At that point, some may have given up and simply decided to master the film in 1.37:1. My colleagues and I wanted to present the movie as the filmmakers intended for the original theatrical release.

We had a clipping from November 27,1953 which lists DS as being filmed for 1.85:1 projection. That gave us a starting point.

DS had started filming on August 12, one month after Allied Artists first announced their full widescreen policy. Unfortunately, they were one of the few studios that did not specify a house ratio. The assumption was that DS was composed for 1.85:1 and you know what they say about assuming anything.

We took our full-aperture master and cropped it to 1.85. Guess what? Not only were heads clipped in every medium shot, one of the opening title cards did not fit. So we tried a 1.75:1 mask. It was better but camera tilting still revealed an abundance of clipped heads on medium shots throughout the film.

We then opened the mask to 1.66:1 and voila - it was perfect. The titles fit beautifully, the head room was comfortable on medium shots and more than anything else, careful study of the camera movement showed constant tilting to keep action safe for the 1.66 frame.

Therefore, a little common sense with a keen understanding of composition - and about two hours of testing - got us to the correct widescreen ratio.

It's not rocket science, it's an art - one that requires a strong knowledge of studio policy and industry production standards at the time of principal photography.

That's how I would have handled the Quatermass films which are widescreen to be sure.

Or, if you really don't care, you can just shrug your shoulders, save yourself a lot of trouble and reproduce that wonderful time you first saw the film on the Late, Late Show in 1968. Make sure you get that 19-inch black and white Sylvania warmed up for the complete experience!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Somebody made a point earlier about the inadequacies of Studio Canal and how they should employ someone like Bob.Lets assume they did.Bob is there along side the SC employess as they try to work out the ratio for QX.After the SC people have their say Bob chimes in with "It should be widescreen".The SC people reply "Ok Bob we'll do it in widescreen if that's what it's supposed to be - what ratio is it in?"Bob- "Ah well - I actually don't know for sure".Not a situation I can see involving any level of respect from SC for an outsiders knowledge . In fact it sounds like much the sort of thing we could imagine happening with the current people who run Hammer - except in that case SC actually took notice of them . And see what responses their guesses got from the fans .

Well, what a well - run organization would do is to actually watch it in the widescreen formats and determine visually which is the likely correct one. We know that the non-widescreen version is not how it was intended.EDIT - I see Bob has posted this same concept.