What's new

Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

bujaki

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
7,099
Location
Richardson, TX
Real Name
Jose Ortiz-Marrero
Bob Furmanek said:
To be honest, red flags went up when I learned they were planning to crop an older transfer. I kept my fingers crossed and hoped for the best.

This illustrates the dangers of working from an element that may have been manipulated.
Bob,
If they are indeed using an older transfer, might not this be the "cut" version? In which case this might be a "no sale" for me.
 

Thomas T

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
10,288
I'm sticking with the old standard DVD of Marty that I have. I was planning to upgrade to an anamorphic transfer but it sounds like the elements they're using are the same as the old DVD or not enough of an "improved" picture to make an upgrade worthwhile ..... for me.
 

Mark Pytel

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
319
Real Name
Mark Pytel
I was so excited for this line, but with antics like this, I have half a mind to cancel my pre-order. If anything, they really should put out both aspect ratios on the blu/dvd. I may cancel all of my pre-orders and take the discs as a wait and see approach. Will any of the 1:66 aspect ratios be done correctly? Will Cotton Comes to Harlem actually be widescreen? I have my doubts now since this was listed as being the first time widescreen thanks to mr furmanek. They list that they spoke to experts, clearly they did not. Bob spoke with them and it clearly fell on deaf ears. It's a shame as I was really looking forward to this release.
 

Cine_Capsulas

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
416
Real Name
Patrick
Thomas T said:
I'm sticking with the old standard DVD of Marty that I have. I was planning to upgrade to an anamorphic transfer but it sounds like the elements they're using are the same as the old DVD or not enough of an "improved" picture to make an upgrade worthwhile ..... for me.
Same here, unfortunately.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
I'm guessing that, like On the Waterfront, Marty may just appear to be a bit cramped at 1.85:1 even though technically it would be correct and 1.66:1 would probably be ideal. Anyway I will end up projecting the Blu-ray at 1.66:1 using the marvelous mechanics of my Panasonic PT-AE4000.
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
I sent these comments to my contact at Kino on May 6.

There's an important point to consider with MARTY and 1.85.If they are taking an older transfer and applying a matte, there's no guarantee it will be an accurate representation of how it is supposed to look in widescreen. Many times, older full-frame transfers of widescreen films are manipulated/zoomed-in during transfer.As an example, here's a 35mm frame from Universal's 1957 film THE DEADLY MANTIS. Notice how much has been cut off on their video master?In the case of MARTY, if you are seeing compromised compositions and consistent head clipping in medium shots, that might very well indicate a manipulated older transfer.
 

Mark Pytel

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
319
Real Name
Mark Pytel
This just proves that they don;t listen either, or are too cheap to do something right. I for one hope that they only licensed stuff that received proper masters/encodes..otherwise, they won't fix or care. It sounds like they just release what is given to them. It's a shame really..considering how this is such an important film.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
Mark Pytel said:
It sounds like they just release what is given to them.
This is true of many smaller labels who are licensing titles out, that includes Twilight Time and Shout/Scream Factory, of course TT do some additional work with recording commentaries and have a nice isolated music score and Shout/Scream usually have good extras but at the end of the day they have to work with what they are given to release, sometimes it's below my standards.
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
When I was first approached on this matter on April 25, they told me that AMPAS ran the film in 1.37:1. I pointed out that many early widescreen films were shown in full-frame when revived at the Academy, including ON THE WATERFRONT, REAR WINDOW, HONDO, JOHNNY GUITAR and DIAL M FOR MURDER.
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
I just looked at the comments on their Facebook page and some people are requesting two versions on the Blu-ray: 1.37 and 1.85.

That will only work if they create a new widescreen transfer utilizing the full width of the 35mm image.

Matting a manipulated transfer would not accurately represent the film in widescreen.
 

Mark Pytel

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
319
Real Name
Mark Pytel
I got this response from Kino. They seemed angry that I questioned them and they seem to think that you have no credibility whatsoever Bob. I wouldn't waste my time with them anymore. They posted some nasty article with some guy that dislikes you, and they are taking his angry crap over your supported infromation. They linked this website on their FB
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2014/06/furmanek-influence-leads-sliced-marty/
Furmanek Influence Leads To Sliced-Down Marty
A Bluray of Delbert Mann and Paddy Chayefsky‘s Oscar-winning Marty (1955) will be released on 7.29. It gives me no comfort or satisfaction to report that the Bluray’s aspect ratio will be in the dreaded 1.85 with the tops and bottoms of the protected 1.37 image (seen on TV, VHS, laser disc and DVDs for the last five or six decades) severed with a meat cleaver. In early May aspect-ratio historian Bob Furmanek noted in a Home Theatre Forum post that (a) the Marty Bluray will (a) be presented “for the first time since the original theatrical release with Mann’s intended 1.85:1 compositions,” and that (b) “we provided the documentation to insure mastering in the correct ratio.”
Let me once again explain the Furmanek spin, which always involves a certain sleight-of-hand.
Mann, who directed the original live-TV Philco Playhouse version of Marty with Rod Steiger in the lead, shot the film version of Marty so that it would look good within a 1.85 aspect ratio because all the big distributors had ordered directors to do this. Mann was ordered to make a 1.85 version in the same way that buck privates are ordered to clean the latrine, but the man made his bones in a televised realm that was boxy, boxy, boxy all the way. Furmanek is nonetheless stating that after honing his craft in live TV for many years and after directing the original teleplay in a 1.33 aspect ratio (i.e., the a.r. standard for television in those days), Mann “intended” a 1.85 image as final and definitive. In other words Mann had become a total 1.85 convert and a true believer by the time he shot the film version in 1954. After thinking visually in 1.33 terms as a TV director for years, Mann suddenly turned on a dime and “saw” Marty as naturally belonging within a 1.85 aspect ratio.
You can believe that if you want. I can tell you that if I was making the calls on the Marty Bluray I would politely ignore Furmanek’s thoroughly researched data stating that exhibition and distribution felt they had to present all non-Scope films within a 1.85 aspect ratio. I would chuckle at their fearful decision to simulate vastness so that non-Scope movies would look bigger and wider than TV images. I would ignore this data because the concerns and anxieties of distribution and exhibition executives in the 1950s don’t mean squat today. What matters is presenting Blurays in a way that looks as handsome and inclusive as possible. What matters is respecting visual information and showing it to viewers if you have it to show.
The proper way to present Marty, of course, would be to offer two or three versions a la On The Waterfront, a 1.37, a 1.66 and a 1.85, but that’s not happening so chalk up another victory for 1.85 fascism.

Kino says on their FB that this article proves that the 1:33 is right. So basically, some idiot on a random website means more to them then someone with actual sources and documents to back themselves up.

They also replied this to me

Kino Lorber Studio Classics Zoomed in? The original negative of this film is 1.33:1, as the title was shot open aperture, some say the bottom and top parts of the original image should be cropped off to create the intended 1.85:1 and others disagree. We tried to create the 1.85:1 master, but realized that we were loosing too much of the film and decided to go with the preferred aspect ratio of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the studio. An employee made an erroneous listing on HTF and we're sorry if that was misleading to anyone, but in no way that was our goal since this title has not been released yet. Making false claims about what this proves is a waste of everyone’s time, we’re proud to release these studio classics and will be re-mastering the non-HD titles to create NEW HD masters.
 

Cine_Capsulas

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
416
Real Name
Patrick
Very unfortunate.

I asked them on Facebook why Wells should be considered a more trusthworthy authority than Mr. Furmanek.

I doubt they'll answer.
 

Vic Pardo

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,520
Real Name
Brian Camp
Mark Pytel said:
The proper way to present Marty, of course, would be to offer two or three versions a la On The Waterfront, a 1.37, a 1.66 and a 1.85, but that’s not happening so chalk up another victory for 1.85 fascism.
Well, Mr. Furmanek, now you've got a title for the inevitable book you'll publish on aspect ratios:
"Confessions of a 1.85 Fascist."
:D
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
Sorry for some of these being outdated now, but...

PlgTaO8.jpg

x4QX1q0.jpg

R6LnYi0.jpg

xEV1mhZ.jpg


It's only "cleavering" the image when it's just the height apparently. Wells and others don't seem to get that 4x3 of widescreen-intended films will almost always result in cropped width.
 

JoHud

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
3,215
Real Name
Joe Hudak
Their "expert" is a Hollywood columnist with an obvious agenda? Not only that, the article doesn't offer one shred of proof that the film is suppose to be viewed at academy ratio. Just a blanket open-matte > cropping statement and the assumption that Daniel Mann was incapable of directing a widescreen cinematic equivalent of a film he directed earlier for Academy Ratio television viewing. Perhaps maybe, just maybe, this film was shot open-matte standard 35mm stock and cropped theatrically because it was cheaper than shooting in Cinemascope or its equivalent rather than some personal love of the academy ratio?

By that rationale, Sidney Lumet's directorial film debut of 12 Angry Men should also be open-matte given the materials earlier TV treatment and Lumet's past as a TV director. Certainly every other director, big and small, made the same leap by 1955. How many Hollywood Academy Ratio films were even being made for that intended viewing ratio in 1955 outside of the poverty row/grindhouse features?

Gotta say, my respect for Kino really nose-dived with that Facebook announcement and exchange. I thought they at least had some sort of expert on early widescreen cinema, but if they were honestly influenced by that article and took it seriously, that's just plain sad.

That said, I'm still buying it solely because it's an HD upgrade, but man what a poor excuse.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
JoHud said:
By that rationale, Sidney Lumet's directorial film debut of 12 Angry Men should also be open-matte given the materials earlier TV treatment and Lumet's past as a TV director.
Don't give Wells any ideas! (Though I suspect he would want 1.33 all the way through the late 60s at least for flat widescreen films.)
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,561
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Well, the people at Kino are being very disingenuous at best. First of all, I can't remember the thread, but Twilight Time posted that when they first got their MGM/UA deal, which pre-dated by a very long time Kino ever doing any of those titles, they sat down and watched sixty transfers and they passed on many of them because they didn't look right or good enough. I'm guessing every single one of those titles has gone to Kino, including Marty, which, from what I can glean, was a zoomed in transfer. They were stuck with something that didn't work and this is their way out, I suppose. It's kind of sickening, and listening to Jeffrey Wells, as if he knew ANYTHING about ANYTHING, is the biggest joke of all. If one saw a proper open matte transfer of Marty that had not been zoomed in, one would see it would be absolutely right at 1.85, which is how it was released to theaters. By that year, there was no more Academy in the US. Period.

So, if certain transfers were not good enough for Twilight Time, just what ARE we going to be getting from Kino.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,815
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top