Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Douglas R]

I saw DAVY (1957) when it was first released and remember it particularly well because it was the first Technirama film and there was much publicity about the process at the time. Network recently released the film on DVD in the "Ealing Studios Rarities Collection Volume 4" in the correct ratio of 2.35:1.

The Kinematograph Weekly issue of May 30, 1957, published a "Technirama Special" supplement which includeded an article about the technicalities of filming DAVY in Technirama. This particular paragraph caught my eye:

I don't think I've ever previously come across the concept of producing a flat 1.85:1 print of a 2.35:1 anamorphic film for showing in theatres not equipped for full width widescreen. Watching the film again, it's true that much of the important action takes place toward the centre of the screen but there are also many scenes where characters are positioned from extreme left to extreme right, so I can't see that the resultant 1.85:1 version would have been very satisfactory. If Director of Photography, Douglas Slocombe really did shoot the film with the intention to avoid essential information at left and right then it's disappointing and partly negates the whole point of shooting the film in Technirama.

 

[Gary16]

Not sure about those titles in particular, but I have heard (i.e., read online, source and fount of all wisdom) that in some cases, studios simply grab an available master, and shovel it out the door. If said master was prepared for VHS, out it goes anyway, in all its cramped and stamped glory. Similarly, The Satan Bug was released, I think last year or the year before, on a DVD-R, and they used a master that had originally been prepped for laserdisc, with predictably horrid PQ.

You're 100% right about the pq of The Satan Bug." I wrote to the company to complain and the response I got was basically "it looks ok here."

 

[Gary Couzens]

Anyone know why Fox continues to release many of their archive titles in full screen (4:3) only including scope movies in pan and scan? Recent titles include:Esther and the King (1960)Sodom and Gomorrah (1962)Tender is the Night (1962)April Love (1957)Etc.

SODOM AND GOMORRAH isn't in Scope. I'm fairly sure that Robert Aldrich never made an anamorphically-shot film.

IMDB says 1.85:1, for what it's worth. BBC2 showed the film back in January, and I recorded it - haven't had a chance to watch it as it's two and a half hours long, but I've just taken a look at the beginning. BBC2's rather washed out 16:9 copy interestingly has the opening credits inside a yellow letterbox but there's definitely no credit for CinemaScope or any other widescreen process. Also the title on the BBC2 print is THE LAST DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH, with "THE LAST DAYS" coming up first and then fading out before "SODOM AND GOMORRAH" appears on screen.

 

[JoHud]

Also, Esther and the King isn't presented pan & scan, thank goodness, however isn't anamorphic.

A large budget 1962 film (Sodom and Gomorrah) in open-matte can't be a pretty sight. Any boom mikes or baseball caps make it into that transfer?

 

[Gary16]

SODOM AND GOMORRAH isn't in Scope. I'm fairly sure that Robert Aldrich never made an anamorphically-shot film.IMDB says 1.85:1, for what it's worth. BBC2 showed the film back in January, and I recorded it - haven't had a chance to watch it as it's two and a half hours long, but I've just taken a look at the beginning. BBC2's rather washed out 16:9 copy interestingly has the opening credits inside a yellow letterbox but there's definitely no credit for CinemaScope or any other widescreen process. Also the title on the BBC2 print is THE LAST DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH, with "THE LAST DAYS" coming up first and then fading out before "SODOM AND GOMORRAH" appears on screen.

I listed those titles because they're all marked as "full frame" in the description regardless of the original aspect ratio. Only a handful actually say widescreen.

 

[Douglas R]

A large budget 1962 film (Sodom and Gomorrah) in open-matte can't be a pretty sight. Any boom mikes or baseball caps make it into that transfer?

Apparently the Fox DVD is a 1.33:1 pan and scan version of the original 1.85:1 - believe it or not!

 

[davidmatychuk]

The 1989 VHS "Sword and Sandals Collection" release of "Sodom And Gomorrah", which was its first home video release (the three others in the "Collection" were "Demetrius And The Gladiators", "The Egyptian", and "David And Bathsheba"), is 1.33:1, but it begins with a 1.66:1 credit sequence surrounded on all four sides by a white border, on a black background. Initially there is an anamorphic squeeze on the image, for about the first two minutes of the credits, and at the point where there's a second cut to the king (and friend) the image remains unsqueezed for the remaining two-and-a-half minutes of credits, after which the image becomes unsqueezed 1.33:1 with no white border. The squeezed portion of the credits seems to unsqueeze properly at 1.85:1. The quality of the print is not great (lots of speckles), and what the squeezing/unsqueezing means is beyond me, but there it is.

 

[Doug Bull]

I don't think I've ever previously come across the concept of producing a flat 1.85:1 print of a 2.35:1 anamorphic film for showing in theatres not equipped for full width widescreen.

This advertisement for MGM's "KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE" seems to indicate that there were flat matted prints available for Cinemas not yet equipped for Cinemascope.

While working in the industry around this time, I was also aware that some Scope equipped Cinemas got the flat prints because there were simply not a enough Scope prints to share around. (the same applied to 4 track magnetic and Optical mono prints - pure luck of the draw)

Was KOTRT another early MGM Production shot separately both Scope and Flat?

Update: IMDb indicates an alternative 1.75:1 Spherical version, so I guess it was.

Douglas R, I understand what you are saying. Was the flat 1.85:1 version of "Davy" derived from an Anamorphic print.
I guess KOTRT is a different scenario.

Doug.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Doug, have you seen my new article?

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

 

[Doug Bull]

Doug, have you seen my new article?

Sorry Bob,
I most likely have.
Your articles are just so full of highly detailed and important information (add enjoyable to that) that this old brain sometimes has trouble absorbing and remembering it all.

Funny I can remember what I did 50 years ago, but forget things I did just a minute or so ago. (taking tablets is the main culprit - did I or didn't I just take one)

So KOTRT was yet another film shot twice.

Doug.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's okay Doug, it's all good. I'm right behind you!

MGM shot all of their 2.55:1 films twice until late in 1954.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

The Decks Ran Red recently ran on TCM, in 1.33:1. Clearly, it was meant to be in 1.85:1.

But I will admit to one thing: As much as the original aspect ratio is a must, I do like how the TCM showing had the cue marks on the top-right corner. They used to be seen on so many early home video releases. I wish they didn't get rid of the cue marks in remastering.

 

[Doug Bull]

That's okay Doug, it's all good. I'm right behind you!

MGM shot all of their 2.55:1 films twice until late in 1954.

That's amazing information Bob. Thanks so much.

Until learning today of KOTRT, I previously only knew of two others.

I'm now off to do some more research on the MGM titles.
Other than "The Robe" and "Oklahoma!"(not shot spherical) were there more from other studios?

Doug.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The first two from Universal: BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH and SIGN OF THE PAGAN.

From MGM: ROSE MARIE, THE STUDENT PRINCE and more in 1954.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I just got what sounds like a weird movie if there ever was one from Warner Archive… "Story of Mankind"… the packaging says it's 1.33:1, but the movie came out in 1957. Probably should be some sort of widescreen, right?

(The movie description was so nuts I'm too curious not to check it out, aspect ratio issues aside.)

 

[Doug Bull]

I just got what sounds like a weird movie if there ever was one from Warner Archive… "Story of Mankind"… the packaging says it's 1.33:1, but the movie came out in 1957. Probably should be some sort of widescreen, right?

(The movie description was so nuts I'm too curious not to check it out, aspect ratio issues aside.)

I once owned a 16mm print of it and purchased the Warner Archive disc for nostalgic reasons only.
My 16mm copy was 1.37:1. IMDb lists the film at 1.66:1

The Warner Disc looks quite good, but be warned that the Movie itself is up there amongst the worst films of all time.
It's just so embarrassing to see respected actors taking it all so seriously in this mammoth turkey.
The actors must have taken up the majority of the budget because the film is overloaded with stock shots from other movies.
View at your own risk. (or just guess what film the stock shots came from)

grabs from the DVD.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm really looking forward to seeing something this bad!

 

[moviebuff75]

What is the OAR for "Romeo and Juliet" (1968)? I've never seen it properly present on video. There was a widescreen vhs release that cut too much off of the bottom (as seen in the end credits, where the MPAA logo is cut off at the bottom.) The dvd does the same to the top of the screen. (The title almost scolls off of the top.) I believe both were 1.85:1.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I'd somehow missed this along my lifelong cinematic progression .. sounds as if it could be great viewing for all the wrong reasons. Only trouble is .. is it worth paying hard cash for? They should be giving it away.

 

[Thomas T]

The first two from Universal: BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH and SIGN OF THE PAGAN.

The German DVD of Sign Of The Pagan contains both the flat and scope versions of the film. Alas, the scope version in not anamorphic.