Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

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. ?

As I said, in some thread here at the HTF, Twilight Time said they'd watched sixty transfers and turned down a considerable number of them due to transfers that they felt were not good enough - looking at the list that Kino is putting out, I don't think it's hard to know what films Twilight Time would have absolutely done, Marty being one of them.

 

[EddieLarkin]

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.

I wouldn't be so sure. When Frank Tarzi was at Olive, Mr. Lime said they released titles like The Atomic Kid in 1.33:1 because they thought they had too little headroom to crop...



http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/305488-coming-soon-from-olive-films/?p=3963511

 

[DVDvision]

Bob, one need to get out of the internet, and actually go and knock on the door of those companies. Like crash the party. They all think because someone on a blog said it loud it's the truth, especially when it goes in the direction of them not doing any further work and issuing something without hassle. They will only change opinion when actual humans confront them, in front of their bosses.

Dinners? Parties? Get your info from insiders. Crash the gate. You will not believe how fast everything will change.

The proofs, you can show them on an iPad, it makes no difference. But when an actual human come knocking / crashing, (or several) believe me, they will cancel releases and ask for better masters. You will even see the boss ask for it. They all fear of losing their jobs, and internet they can control. Actual humans, they cannot.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

My response to this whole Marty fiasco:

Absolutely 100% pathetic on both the part of Kino Video, and especially on the part of Jeffrey Wells, for having the audacity, the nerve, to blame Bob Furmanek for the fiasco. I do not wish to sound mean spirited (if I do, I apologize), but I have the perfect analogy to describe this fiasco:This is the equivalent of having a beloved child raped and murdered by someone, and then the rapist/murdered blamed it on you.

 

[Gary Couzens]

Did trade papers in the 1950s like Boxoffice provide recommended aspect ratios for short subjects as well as features? I am thinking of shorts like The Three Stooges, Looney Tunes, and other short subjects.

Funny you should mention this, as I recently watched Under Night Streets, a 1958 short that's an extra on the BFI's release of Underground. It was shot in 35mm (by David Watkin, no less) and was made by British Transport Films. I'd be surprised if it didn't play in cinemas as a supporting short, given that it's clearly aimed at a more populist than specialist audience. Also, the BBFC did pass it for cinema release. It's presented in 4:3 on the BFI's Blu-ray and DVD, but guess what? It looks absolutely fine zoomed to 1.75:1.

What concerns me most is the confirmation that the film was shot at 1.75:1 and not, as most still assume, at a de facto 1.66:1. We need to get the message across that 1.66:1 was not the British standard and any acknowledgement of evidence such as exists on the supplements of If.... would surely help.

What concerns me most is the confirmation that the film was shot at 1.75:1 and not, as most still assume, at a de facto 1.66:1. We need to get the message across that 1.66:1 was not the British standard and any acknowledgement of evidence such as exists on the supplements of If.... would surely help.

I'm relying on memory here, as I don't have a copy of the book to hand, but Walter Lassally's autobiography Itinerant Cameraman refers to the making of The Adding Machine, a 1969 British-made film which Lassally photographed. It's not the most technical book as far as I remember, but he does specify that the ratio of that film is 1.75:1.

 

[Patrick McCart]

By the way, on animated shorts...I found that Warner did not have consistent adoption of widescreen for the cartoons. There are some late 1950s shorts that would never work in even 1.66:1 like What's Opera Doc, but some early 1960s shorts are clearly composed for widescreen.The revival shorts from the 1980s and 1990s are all meant for 1.85:1, too.

 

[seangood79]

Since many of these new Kino titles are UA, I expect to see a lot more wrong aspect ratios. MGM/UA still insists on their movies into the '60s be shown in 1.66.
A little more than a year ago I ran a 35mm print of Some Like It Hot (Blu Ray 1.66) in 1.85. Can't tell you how happy I was early in the movie watching the camera pan up when a character stood, and the top of his head never left the frame.
On that note, Bob, have you provided your documentation to the folks at MGM/UA? I'm curious to know their response.

 

[battlebeast]

All of this Aspect Ratio stuff boggles my mind. I'm upset at Kino's attitude towards us (the people who buy their product), but I wills till buy Marty because I need it for my colletion. I hate to support them with their arrogant attitude, but what choice do I have? I want a complete collection.

 

[Mark Pytel]

Now I'm sure this isn't going to happen, but in my opinion, if Kino wants to save face, they should investigate doing a new transfer, even if it meant that the release was delayed. I think if they announced that and fixed all of this, it would probably put everyone at ease and show them that they not only care about the films, but about the customers perception of them. I'm sure that instead that are going to hope this will all blow over, but I'm pretty sure now many people are not too happy with the response or the issue.
The good news is that most of the titles that were announced have in fact been shown in proper aspect ratio on MGM HD. I think the only issues will lie with the early widescreen titles such as this. As with Scream/Shout, most of their MGM titles look great. Only a few of them were non-OAR. I'm thinking (and hoping) that will be the case here. Hopefully just like with Olive, most of the titles will probably come out looking just fine, while a few will be incorrectly presented, such as Johnny Guitar.
Most of these places use masters already provided to them. I'm sure 90 percent of the time, they will just use whatever MGM has which as we've seen on MGM HD looks just fine. The main issues as always has been those early widescreen films. For the longest time, even MGM themselves"thought" they should be 1:33. This transfer is probably I'm guessing a leftover from that past mistake. As we've seen with even some of the older MGM MOD dvd's, some of the 1950's titles were presented correctly, others were not. I was pretty mad yesterday, and still am today, but I'm more mad by their lack of respect for Bob and his work, as well as the kind of rude answers I got on FB. If they would have honestly said right off the bat, we are using an older master that may have been manipulated since that is all that we were provided, and that one doesn't crop properly, I would have still been bummed but not mad. Here's hoping that some day this film is remastered properly.

 

[Mark Pytel]

Also, I would also like to take a moment to apologize if I in fact was rude in any way during some of my earlier comments. I saw on the Kino board that Mr Lime seemed offended by some of the people's messages. If I was rude in any way I;m sorry, but I am not apologziing for being upset that the film will not be OAR. As a film lover and member of the forum, and a consumer, it is my right to vocalize my opinions and reviews on items. If those are unhappy that I don't like each and everything that comes out..that's too bad. But I do need to be civil which I truly hope that I was.

 

[Persianimmortal]

What really bugs me is the implied attack on Bob Furmanek. Kino has every right to put out films in any aspect ratio they want if they pay for the rights, however much we may dislike the fact that OAR isn't being used. However to ignore Bob's expert advice backed by evidence, and publicly contradict that advice by announcing something that isn't correct, namely that academy ratio was the "preferred ratio", is not acceptable.

All Kino has to do to make this right is to acknowledge the correct aspect ratio as advised by Bob, then explain that due to particular circumstances beyond their control (e.g. they have been handed a manipulated transfer that is zoomed), they've decided to release in academy ratio instead. As it stands, they're basically misleading people with their announcement, making it seem as though 1.33:1 is the OAR for Marty.

 

[EddieLarkin]

MisterLime has now said straight out that even a brand new transfer would not save Marty; they genuinely believe 1.33:1 was the director intended ratio and that the film played in original run theatres compromised. They believe the same about The Atomic Kid, and the other head room extravaganzas Olive put out.

 

[DVDvision]

That´s it the widescreen war is declared. This episode is point zero.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

On December 5, 1953, Boxoffice published a survey of 16,753 operating indoor domestic theaters. It showed that 80% of downtown theaters and 69% of neighborhood theaters had installed widescreens. In total, 58% of all U.S. theaters had gone widescreen by the end of 1953. The conversion was slow in the Southern and North central parts of the country and that’s why the films were still protected during photography for the standard Academy ratio.​

​

The use of various wide screen aspect ratios would continue for several more years but one thing was certain: 1.37:1 - the standard production and exhibition ratio since 1932 - was abandoned. ​

​

In September 1954, Merle Chamberlin (Director of Projection at MGM) stated, "All of the studios are convinced that the old 3/4 picture is gone and the wider aspect ratio is here to stay." ​

​

MARTY began production on September 7, 1954 and was released in April, 1955...​

​

For more information on the rapid demise of 1.37:1 as a production ratio and the transition to widescreen exhibition in 1953, I recommend:

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

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm on the east coast and just spoke with a researcher at the Margaret Herrick library in Beverly Hills. http://www.oscars.org/library/

She pulled the clipping file for MARTY and confirmed the following:

The Variety review does not indicate the recommended AR.

However, the March 21, 1955 review in the Hollywood Reporter does and it's 1.85:1.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm on the east coast and just spoke with a researcher at the Margaret Herrick library in Beverly Hills. http://www.oscars.org/library/

She pulled the clipping file for MARTY and confirmed the following:

The Variety review does not indicate the recommended AR.

However, the March 21, 1955 review in the Hollywood Reporter does and it's 1.85:1.

We believe you Bob. At least most of us do.

 

[DVDvision]

Variety is right, Bob!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

In looking at other Variety reviews from March 1955, it's not unusual for the AR data to be missing.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Bob, why can't I seem to access the Variety archives? It keeps saying "No Results Found", no matter what I search for.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm having the same problem today. Some kind of bug in the system, I guess.