Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

WellsVision: The new process that adds more headroom and gets rid of extra picture on the side while more accurately capturing the ennui of your 30-year-old videotapes.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'm "loosing" some respect for Kino based upon that response to Mark Pytel.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

In response to this recent issue, some friends have suggested that I don't "make enough noise" about my achievements within the industry.

To the regulars, please forgive this little self-promotion.

My first industry job was in 1980 at the age of 19 when I was hired to work with one-of-a-kind nitrate film elements, including the original 35mm elements for WAY DOWN EAST that were restored for the Museum of Modern Art.

I'm a published author; have produced award-winning laser discs and RIAA-certified gold records; have personally restored four feature films; helped to save and restore 35mm film capability to a shuttered 1929 movie palace; found the long-lost nitrate camera negative to MEET JOHN DOE and the trims from the color STAR TREK pilot; produced a weekly prime-time TV show on American Movie Classics for six months; worked as personal archivist to both Jerry Lewis and the Abbott and Costello Estates, and built the world's largest archive of vintage stereoscopic film elements.

I started compiling studio documents and industry trade journals on the 1952-1955 period for my 3-D research about 30 years ago.

Jack Theakston and I began doing serious research on the widescreen transition in 2007.

It's worth noting that we have provided all of our research and aspect ratio data to the various studios/copyright holders free of charge.

My clients include Warner Bros, NBC Universal, Criterion Collection, the British Film Institute, the UCLA Film and Television Archive, the David Packard/Stanford Theater Foundation, Paramount Pictures, the Elvis Presley Estate, 20th Century Fox, Billboard Magazine, NBC Television, MCA Home Video, RCA Records, Museum of the Moving Image, Abbott and Costello Enterprises, BBC Television and many more.

A brief bio: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/312058-meet-bob-furmanek-htf-golden-age-3-d-consultant/?p=3784899

An interview: http://www.drfilm.net/blog/?p=294

History of the 3-D Film Archive: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/history-of-the-archive

And now back to our regularly scheduled program!

 

[ahollis]

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.

It just shows they, as with Olive, Shout, and Twilight Time, use what is provided. At least TT has the guts to reject something that is wrong.

 

[Timothy E]

I also understand that Bob Furmanek single-handedly located and reconstructed the 3-D elements of I, The Jury(1953), which were previously thought to be lost.

Off topic, I was fortunate enough to see I, The Jury projected in 3-D at the 2013 3-D Expo in Hollywood, and I really hope to see that film released in 3-D someday on BD.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Sigh.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I also understand that Bob Furmanek single-handedly located and reconstructed the 3-D elements of I, The Jury(1953), which were previously thought to be lost.

Thank you, yes I did.

I was honored to present the UK 3-D premiere in July 1999 with Mickey Spillane at the National Film Theatre. It was a great night!

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm very disappointed in these recent developments regarding Marty. I'd made some comments in the Kino Lorber thread to post my concerns and wondering about the future of my Kino preorders.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I'll definitely be waiting for reviews here before ordering any titles!

 

[JohnMor]

Based on my experiences with Olive, I've held off any pre-orders pending reviews. I just do not have the money, time, patience or space for any sub-par blu rays anymore. I will gladly support those done right, but I have learned to live without (or make do with an upscaled dvd) those that aren't.

 

[DavidJ]

Well, I was about to place a few pre-orders when I ran across this. Now, I will be waiting too.

 

[Mark-P]

Out of curiosity, I just pulled out my open-matte MGM DVD of Marty to spot check the framing. There is no question that it was composed for widescreen. There is ample head room all around, so I don't know what Kino was looking at saying their print is too cramped. My DVD could easily be matted to 1.85:1 with no problems at all. They should have just gone with 1.78:1 and been done with it. What I did notice is that the transfer on the DVD was really poor. So at least we should be getting a nice, cleaned-up HD version on Blu-ray even if it is open-matte. As I said earlier, I'll just use my projector's matting capabilities to screen in correctly.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Wow. Just going through the saga over the last few pages of this thread makes for some sad reading. It's utterly inexcusable that Kino should try to misdirect people about their cheapskating ways, worse still to point to the article by Jeffrey "King of the know-nothing assclowns" Wells as evidence to back them up.

The interesting thing is that despite Bob being an expert in his field, with a great deal of invaluable experience, you don't even need to know who Bob is, or anything about his background. He always substantiates his claims with solid evidence. Such a shame that we live in a world where a sensationalist loudmouth like Wells gets more mileage with his moronic "boxy is beautiful" diatribe than Bob does with the actual facts.

No sale Kino, no sale.

 

[FoxyMulder]

we’re proud to release these studio classics and will be re-mastering the non-HD titles to create NEW HD masters.

When they say re-mastering the non-HD titles it makes me wonder if they are going to upscale titles that are SD because i don't think they have access to the negatives or proper high definition masters, i'd like to know what that statement meant.

 

[Mark Pytel]

A day after all of this, I am honestly taken aback that they would actually post a link to that article, basically flaming and slamming Bob for his hard work. That is very poor PR and paints a bad image of them on here. I was so excited by this line, but honestly am not sure if I should support them. I feel that they talked down to my questions and pretty much could not give a straight answer. Also, why in the holy hell they would listen to some nutjob on line instead of someone who has evidence, articles, pictures etc. That Jeffery Wellls pretty much slams Delbert Mann stating how he would not know how to compose for widescreen since he was a tv director. What the hell is that about? And yet they listen to that clown?

 

[Charles Smith]

I found it not only poor PR, but inflammatory and unprofessional.

 

[Yorkshire]

This is all quite sad. No one should be quoting Welles, at least without the caveat that even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

Bob, I may have missed it - what exactly is the evidence for Marty on this? Trades? Studio documentation?

The only thing I'll say in Kino's defence (and it may be a very minor defence at that). If, as Bob suspects, they have a zoomed 1.33:1 master, then it's possible this is the only way to go, if that's all they can get. To be clear, if the master they have is so zoomed that it crops too much in 1.66:1, then the zoom may already have cut off almost as much of the frame at the top and bottom as if a full frame master were cropped to 1.66:1. In that case, cropping the zoomed 1.33:1 master would only succeed in (incoorectly) cropping even more.

But then you'd maybe have to ask if it's worth having Marty at all on Blu-ray Disc if it really is that zoomed.

On balance, and reluctantly, if this is the best we get (presuming a decent upgrade in picture quality from SD DVD), then I'll grudgingly take it and zoom as necessary, whilst giving thanks that most of my favourite films are not butchered to that extent.

As ever, I keep my mind open to further arguments, etc, but this really does look like a right mess.

Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

But then you'd maybe have to ask if it's worth having Marty at all on Blu-ray Disc if it really is that zoomed.

In an earlier post, if i read it correctly, Bruce seems to be saying that Twilight Time turned down these releases because the quality wasn't good enough, so maybe it isn't worth having these on blu ray, maybe we should have had some sort of quality control standard implemented all those years ago when blu ray was launched.

It seems to me that if these titles sell well then there will be absolutely no incentive for the studio to ever upgrade them and make brand new modern state of the art masters, if they don't sell well then the studio thinks no one wants to buy catalog releases, no one ever stops to think that perhaps we want them but are only willing to pay if they are done right, it's a catch 22 situation and one where the consumer ultimately loses out, buy them and be damned, don't buy them and be damned.

I'd like to know for sure that i read it correctly, are these titles Twilight Time turned down. ?

 

[EddieLarkin]

This is all quite sad. No one should be quoting Welles, at least without the caveat that even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

Bob, I may have missed it - what exactly is the evidence for Marty on this? Trades? Studio documentation?

The only thing I'll say in Kino's defence (and it may be a very minor defence at that). If, as Bob suspects, they have a zoomed 1.33:1 master, then it's possible this is the only way to go, if that's all they can get. To be clear, if the master they have is so zoomed that it crops too much in 1.66:1, then the zoom may already have cut off almost as much of the frame at the top and bottom as if a full frame master were cropped to 1.66:1. In that case, cropping the zoomed 1.33:1 master would only succeed in (incoorectly) cropping even more.

But then you'd maybe have to ask if it's worth having Marty at all on Blu-ray Disc if it really is that zoomed.

On balance, and reluctantly, if this is the best we get (presuming a decent upgrade in picture quality from SD DVD), then I'll grudgingly take it and zoom as necessary, whilst giving thanks that most of my favourite films are not butchered to that extent.

As ever, I keep my mind open to further arguments, etc, but this really does look like a right mess.

Steve W

The evidence is here:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/page-167#entry4023963

It started shooting long after UA switched and at a time when standard sized screens were becoming very rare. It's nonsense to think it may have been composed 1.33:1. Naturally, the trades recommended 1.85:1 projection.

If the master is so badly zoomed already that only 1.33:1 is acceptable, then it's basically had all of its side information removed, and definitely isn't worth releasing. I doubt that it's anywhere near that bad though, as Mark-P's assessment seems to suggest the DVD crops fine.

What they should do is what Masters of Cinema did with La Notte. Their master was missing side information and so they released at the slightly looser 1.66:1, despite 1.85:1 being correct. You can see the side information make a come back in the 1.85:1 Blu-ray released later, from a more modern transfer, with the top line staying about the same:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=3287&disc2=3286&cap1=30237&cap2=30229&art=full&image=0&hd_multiID=1371&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

 

[haineshisway]

Out of curiosity, I just pulled out my open-matte MGM DVD of Marty to spot check the framing. There is no question that it was composed for widescreen. There is ample head room all around, so I don't know what Kino was looking at saying their print is too cramped. My DVD could easily be matted to 1.85:1 with no problems at all. They should have just gone with 1.78:1 and been done with it. What I did notice is that the transfer on the DVD was really poor. So at least we should be getting a nice, cleaned-up HD version on Blu-ray even if it is open-matte. As I said earlier, I'll just use my projector's matting capabilities to screen in correctly.

But it's clearly a different master to what was used for the DVD or they wouldn't be making the statement they're making.