What's new

Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

Gary Couzens

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
86
Yorkshire said:
Just a quick heads up on differing aspect ratios - though I expect this film is so 'select' that few will have heard of it, let alone be interested.

The old UK DVD of Bernard Rose's Paperhouse is 1.66:1. The new French Blu-ray Disc is 1.85:1. As far as I can see both are the same width.

I'll give it a study and see how the framing looks when I get the chance.

Steve W
Not that select - I saw it on release. I don't think it was shown as narrowly as 1.66:1 when I saw it - probably 1.75:1. But that doesn't mean 1.85:1 wouldn't be correct.
Bob Furmanek said:
Gary, I'm sorry, no luck on U.S. documentation for JEDDA.

I'll keep digging...
Thanks! Digging a bit further, it seems production began in 1952, so Academy it presumably is then.
John Hodson said:
It was Mackendrick / Ealing authority Philip Kemp who said at the Criterion forum:

"I've never seen TLK screened in anything but Academy ratio. In fact as far as I know, only one Ealing movie was ever made in widescreen - the late and rather feeble comedy Davy, which was shot in Technirama. So 1.66:1 would distort Sandy's film rather badly."

Four years ago - unbelievably in retrospect - my former idiot self bought that.
I posted in that same thread four years ago and said that he was presumably using "widescreen" to mean Scope. Ealing's last film, THE SIEGE OF PINCHGUT was out on DVD by then, in a ratio of 1.66:1. Since then, THE SHIRALEE has also been released on disc, and that's 1.66:1 on disc as well.
 

bluelaughaminute

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Messages
176
Real Name
Ernie
Network release the majority of their 50's and 60's British films in 1.66 or 4x3.
The Edgar Wallace Mysteries , all 47 of them are 1.66 and very good they look too , much better than previous 4x3 tv broadcasts.
Perfect Friday with Stanley Baker also 1.66 .

But they are now starting to list their bonus 4 x 3 versions as "maximum filmed picture area versions" or "original as filmed 4x3 version" rather than original cinema ratio.
 

David Weicker

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,671
Real Name
David
EddieLarkin said:
The director apparently gave interviews in 1955 about the making of the film, stating that he deliberately avoided the new "widescreen technologies" and opted for standard shooting instead.
Douglas R said:
I saw the Ladykillers on first release in 1956 at my local north London cinema and it was shown widescreen. None of my local cinemas at that time showed films in the old Academy ratio. Even when they showed pre-1953 reissues, they would crop the picture and adjust the framing up and down in order not to lose tops of heads!
Bob Furmanek said:
I guess that means he did not see the film when it was released theatrically.

Mr. Kemp is an authority on Ealing and he's never been through the UK trade papers from the period, such as Kinematograph Weekly or The Ideal Kinema?
Is it possible this is a similar situation to Shane, where the Director composed for Academy, but when it was shown theatrically, the studio put it out in Widescreen?

And I realize the years are different, but in that case, the director's supposed 'intent' over-ruled every piece of documentation showing how it was displayed theatrically.
 

EddieLarkin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
991
Location
Yorkshire
Real Name
Nick
You've quoted me out a context there, don't you think? I go on to explain in the next few sentences why the interviews the director gave do not indicate the film isn't widescreen.

To answer your question: no, as Shane doesn't even remotely work at 1.66:1, it being composed for 1.37:1. The Dam Busters exhibits all the usual hallmarks of a film intended to be matted to widescreen.

You're incorrect in saying that the documentation on Shane is overruled by the director's intent. The most important piece of documentation, the start date of shooting, indicates that the film was composed 1.37:1, completely in line with the director's intent. The Dam Busters on the other hand started shooting after ABPC switched to widescreen production.
 

David Weicker

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,671
Real Name
David
EddieLarkin said:
You've quoted me out a context there, don't you think? I go on to explain in the next few sentences why the interviews the director gave do not indicate the film isn't widescreen.

To answer your question: no, as Shane doesn't even remotely work at 1.66:1, it being composed for 1.37:1. The Dam Busters exhibits all the usual hallmarks of a film intended to be matted to widescreen.

You're incorrect in saying that the documentation on Shane is overruled by the director's intent. The most important piece of documentation, the start date of shooting, indicates that the film was composed 1.37:1, completely in line with the director's intent. The Dam Busters on the other hand started shooting after ABPC switched to widescreen production.
It is true I didn't include your interpretation of the director's comments. All we can tell from his supposed quote is that we don't know for certain what his intent was. Except that he is not on record either way - for widescreen or for academy.

As for Shane 'not working' at 1:66:1 (or other non-academy AR), well it did win the Best Cinematography Academy Award for its widescreen theatrical release. So it obviously worked for someone.

And it was the documentation of that theatrical release that was over-ruled when the Blu-Ray was released.
 

EddieLarkin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
991
Location
Yorkshire
Real Name
Nick
David Weicker said:
As for Shane 'not working' at 1:66:1 (or other non-academy AR), well it did win the Best Cinematography Academy Award for its widescreen theatrical release. So it obviously worked for someone.

And it was the documentation of that theatrical release that was over-ruled when the Blu-Ray was released.
I'm sure it worked for the people who saw it in 1.37:1, which was probably the majority in April 53. I wonder how many engagements it played in 1.66:1 after its premiere at the Radio City Music Hall?

Yes, the documentation of the premiere was overruled; by more valuable documentation. This is the case when determining any aspect ratio. Take Jet Pilot; a film not released until 1957, when 1.37:1 was well and truly gone, and cinemas in the US were essentially 100% widescreen. What's the ratio? 1.37:1. Why? Because documentation shows that it was actually shot in 1949; this supersedes any documentation relating to its eventual theatrical presentation.

If you have documentation that supersedes what we have for The Dam Busters, I'll gladly reconsider my position on its aspect ratio.
 

John Hodson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
4,627
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
Real Name
John
I'd venture to say that the clincher for both The Dam Busters and The Ladykillers is that, from the opening titles to the closing credits, both UK BDs frame beautifully at an approximation of 1.75:1 with not a single shot appearing tight or out of place.
 

EddieLarkin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
991
Location
Yorkshire
Real Name
Nick
Re The Ladykillers, I may have posted this already:

From 1.15 to 1.38 you'll see 7(!) distinct camera movements, all employed to keep Guinness' head from being cropped by the frame line, or to bring it in line again. In Academy, all are pointless and no doubt just look like the camera operator couldn't keep things steady.

The Dam Busters has similar scenes, of course (3:20?):



Nothing like that in Shane!
 

seangood79

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
200
Real Name
Sean
bluelaughaminute said:
But they are now starting to list their bonus 4 x 3 versions as "maximum filmed picture area versions" or "original as filmed 4x3 version" rather than original cinema ratio.
That reminds me when The Incredibles first came out on DVD. The store had letterboxed and 4:3 discs side by side. The 4:3 version said "In family friendly full screen".
That offended me so much I didn't buy any version, and I love that movie.
Oh well, at least I didn't have to complain about double dipping when it came out on Blu Ray.
 

bluelaughaminute

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Messages
176
Real Name
Ernie
seangood79 said:
That reminds me when The Incredibles first came out on DVD. The store had letterboxed and 4:3 discs side by side. The 4:3 version said "In family friendly full screen".
That offended me so much I didn't buy any version, and I love that movie.
Oh well, at least I didn't have to complain about double dipping when it came out on Blu Ray.
So you refused to buy a movie you love because the studio decided to offer an alternative to viewers who may not have had widescreen tv's at the time.
That showed them then.
All that achieved was you missing out on a movie you love for several years.

Warner released lots of films including some of the Harry Potter films in 4x3 aswell as widescreen during the dvd years.
As this didn't affect the options to see them in widescreen I didn't see a problem with that.
And remember with modern tv safe productions like Jurassic Park you gain at the sides as often as you lose at the top and bottom .
If I'd had a 4x3 set at the time I'd have preferred to view in 4x3 rather than lose image at the top and bottom regardless of whether it was important .

The only real problem back then was the 2.35:1 movies being chopped in half for tv and video - now that was a real problem in comparison to the minutiae being discussed on this thread.

As this documentation has apparently been around for more than 2 years we have to suspect that MGM , Hammer , Studio Canal , Network and others might have their own documentation relating to the product they own rather than some news reports from trade publications

The claim in Bobs posts say info was partly obtained by looking at studio archives - presumably not the archives of any of the aforementioned companies
 

JoHud

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
3,215
Real Name
Joe Hudak
bluelaughaminute said:
The only real problem back then was the 2.35:1 movies being chopped in half for tv and video - now that was a real problem in comparison to the minutiae being discussed on this thread.
It still is a problem with certain labels (on DVD), buts it's more of an issue of budgetary laziness than ignorance.
 

bluelaughaminute

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Messages
176
Real Name
Ernie
JoHud said:
It still is a problem with certain labels (on DVD), buts it's more of an issue of budgetary laziness than ignorance.
In the Bluray era I've not seen any 2.35:1 movies chopped in half , not usually even on dvd I don't think apart from one of those Mill Creek compilations and the chopped up travesties seemed to be of movies that are available properly on other releases. Their Space set included the Italian horror Alien Contamination but their dvd version was actually a direct transfer from a VHS tape - so no worries for Blue Underground there .
Mill Creek seem to be a label best avoided
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
I just came across this wonderful cartoon from a January 1954 issue of International Projectionist and thought you'd enjoy it.

Screen-154_zpsc33ac2cc.gif
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,311
Real Name
Robert Harris
moviebuff75 said:
So, for Academy Ratio films on blu-ray/dvd, I assume they do the cropping digitally now. Do they try to crop from the edge of the corners (thus eliminating the corners)? Some titles are cropped heavily on both the left and right sides and I'm just wondering what the standard is for cropping.
The standard for cropping is a projection matte. For 70mm, that would be an RP91.

RAH
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to post these for a while.

If you are watching open-matte transfers of widescreen films and cropping to the intended ratios, here are SMPTE RP40 loops for the various ratios.

Fill your screen to the proper width and crop the height accordingly. Keep in mind that some transfers may be zoomed and manipulated so these mattes may not always be effective.

1.66:1
SMPTE-1.66.jpg



1.75:1
SMPTE-175.jpg



1.85:1
SMPTE-1.85.jpg



2:1
SMPTE-2.1.jpg
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
You get the SMPTE stuff on the Spears and Munsil 2nd edition calibration disc too.

Just read a review for the UK release of Theatre Of Blood, apparently released by Arrow in 1.66:1, i can't help but think it should be 1.75:1 minimum. It's supposed to be a very nice release and should please Vincent Price fans, it's a good movie.
 

Doug Bull

Advanced Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
1,544
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Doug Bull
Was "RIDE, VAQUERO!" the first MGM title made for and released in Widescreen?

I always believed that in Australia it was "YOUNG BESS"

Here is an interesting piece by Australian Author and Movie Historian John Howard Reid.
He is reviewing "Ride, Vaquero!"...

widescreen1.jpg


Doug.
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
He's got it right.

The first photographed for 1.75 widescreen was ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO.

The first released in widescreen (composed for 1.37) was YOUNG BESS.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,552
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top