Aspect Ratio Documentation (4 Viewers)

[Dr Griffin]

Thank you very much TomTom.

If you were "in the trenches" doing transfers in the early days of HD mastering, you know how much image manipulation was done.

I've done some additional research to paint a better picture of the production climate at the time MARTY went before the cameras.

Hecht-Lancaster Productions announced a two year/seven film distribution deal with United Artists on February 9, 1954. The first three features produced under this contract were all widescreen: APACHE was 1.85; VERA CRUZ was Superscope 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN - which was filmed at the same time as MARTY - was CinemaScope 2.55:1.

I came across this interesting article on the Bronx theater used for the location scenes:

Marty-filming-9.9.54.gif

It was demolished in 2010. Check out these photos of the final days as an auto repair shop!

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/7022

Those pictures are hard to look at.

 

[Jari K]

"just for asking a few simple questions which any reasonable person would have just answered"For you it was: Kino is releasing some sub-standard masters which TT originally rejected. "Admit it Kino!" This was pretty much your "simple question". Cry me a river.

 

[theonemacduff]

And here attached is an old smpte chart reflecting, IMO, probably those same scan decisions. I was told, when I started out, you are not supposed to see the "barber poles" on the outside.

This was all for 4x3 and broadcast safe issues in regards to tv overscan.

BTW--Mr. Furmanek--Thank You for your extensive research.

Wow. It's amazing how closely that chart matches the Deadly Mantis shot. Actually, more like frightening. And here's me, in years gone by, worrying that my fave widescreen films were panned 'n' scanned for viewing on my old TV, and little did I know that even Academy ratio films were being butchered due to overscan.

Speaking of aspect ratios, I just got a copy of the BR of The Train, and it's being put out at 1.66, just like the old DVD. Surely in the early 60s, this would have been projected at 1.75 in the UK and 1.85 in the US? Did Twilight Time contact you Bob?

 

[EddieLarkin]

Sat down tonight with Louis Malle's excellent Zazie dans le metro, only to discover another Criterion AR flub. The intended widescreen ratio is obvious from the opening few minutes, and some simple research essentially confirms it; Malle's 1958 feature debut, Elevator to the Gallows, is flat widescreen as per Criterion's own DVD. His follow up The Lovers, 2.35:1. His next, Zazie dans le metro, back to 1.37:1? Very doubtful. Looking like it does here? Not a chance. Plenty of headroom in medium shots, constant movement of the camera to keep actors safe within the widescreen framing, and there's even a silent film style intertitle used at one point, the borders of which are 1.66:1 shaped, rather than 1.33:1.

Since the master is 1.33:1 rather than 1.37:1, I cropped it to 1.60:1, which was about perfect. I suppose Criterion may have known the film was 1.66:1 (even flippin' IMDB and TCM are right on this one!), but felt it was cropped already as delivered and so didn't want to risk it; which is fine, but they still have the audacity to claim 1.33:1 is the films "original aspect ratio" in the booklet.

Speaking of aspect ratios, I just got a copy of the BR of The Train, and it's being put out at 1.66, just like the old DVD. Surely in the early 60s, this would have been projected at 1.75 in the UK and 1.85 in the US? Did Twilight Time contact you Bob?

It's another "MGM thinks all UA product was 1.66:1" case again I'm afraid.

 

[FoxyMulder]

"just for asking a few simple questions which any reasonable person would have just answered"For you it was: Kino is releasing some sub-standard masters which TT originally rejected. "Admit it Kino!" This was pretty much your "simple question". Cry me a river.

I did private message you after your quoting me in the Kino thread.

For all i know the majority of the titles may be good quality blu rays from great masters, it was a question to Kino and your take on it is wrong, how on earth am i as a consumer expected to know anything if they won't talk about it, yeah they have talked, they have talked down to us/me, they are here using this forum to sell their product but they don't want to discuss any of the technical details other than this title is being released on this date and we'd like you to buy it but hey if you wanna ask about the technical merits of an individual title then sorry we won't answer you, it's a trade secret, yeah okay, not very helpful in my opinion.

One of the things i like about Criterion is they give some technical details in the little booklet with each release so you can see if it's a new 4K scan or perhaps a 2K scan taken from an Interpositive ( such as Charade ) i like to know those details.

We're at a home theater forum dedicated to the hobby of collecting and dedicated to doing things the right way, i see nothing wrong with asking questions in a thread where a particular label is releasing great films, i asked questions in the Twilight Time and Criterion threads too, i don't get all this defensive stuff, just tell us the details and keep us happy and we will buy the discs.

What's the big secret about revealing which titles have been re-mastered in high definition, they can give hints but not reveal the info, what's all that about, i just don't get it, nope i think i asked a few simple questions and a simple reply back was all i needed.

 

[ThadK]

If that's how Kino wants to interact with their fans, they're not getting a dime of my money. Ditto for Olive Films, who have no qualms with having the same sycophant "represent" them.

 

[ROclockCK]

We're at a home theater forum dedicated to the hobby of collecting and dedicated to doing things the right way, i see nothing wrong with asking questions in a thread where a particular label is releasing great films, i asked questions in the Twilight Time and Criterion threads too, i don't get all this defensive stuff, just tell us the details and keep us happy and we will buy the discs.

What's the big secret about revealing which titles have been re-mastered in high definition, they can give hints but not reveal the info, what's all that about, i just don't get it, nope i think i asked a few simple questions and a simple reply back was all i needed.

That's when my red flags went up too Malcolm. it's not like these releases are a year, or even 6 months away. July through Sept is well within the normal zone for detailed product specs...at very least, from their July roster.

 

[ThadK]

"just for asking a few simple questions which any reasonable person would have just answered"For you it was: Kino is releasing some sub-standard masters which TT originally rejected. "Admit it Kino!" This was pretty much your "simple question". Cry me a river.

I read FoxyMulder's posts. It looks like he was asking the same question in two different threads - though with a bit more assertive certainty that the "Kino is using what Twilight rejected" scenario is correct in the one thread, which is what got the "rep"'s panties in a knot.

Whatever it is, Kino is losing a lot of its fanbase at this rate. I'd take the "rep" off their payroll.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I read FoxyMulder's posts. It looks like he was asking the same question in two different threads - though with a bit more assertive certainty that the "Kino is using what Twilight rejected" scenario is correct in the one thread, which is what got the "rep"'s panties in a knot.

Whatever it is, Kino is losing a lot of its fanbase at this rate. I'd take the "rep" off their payroll.

For sure but please understand that i was reading the comments from Bruce before i made my posts and then Twilight Time themselves, the Kino rep seems to be two different entities, i noted the daytime UK one seemed a bit aggressive and the nighttime UK one seemed friendly, my take on it is they use two different employees with the same user name.

They were showing Buster on BBC 2 in HD tonight, didn't look that good to me, was it actual HD or upscaled, don't know, the shocking thing was that it was window boxed and in what looks like a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, pretty sure that one would be 1.85:1.

 

[Vic Pardo]

Thank you very much TomTom.

If you were "in the trenches" doing transfers in the early days of HD mastering, you know how much image manipulation was done.

I've done some additional research to paint a better picture of the production climate at the time MARTY went before the cameras.

Hecht-Lancaster Productions announced a two year/seven film distribution deal with United Artists on February 9, 1954. The first three features produced under this contract were all widescreen: APACHE was 1.85; VERA CRUZ was Superscope 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN - which was filmed at the same time as MARTY - was CinemaScope 2.55:1.

I came across this interesting article on the Bronx theater used for the location scenes:

Marty-filming-9.9.54.gif

It was demolished in 2010. Check out these photos of the final days as an auto repair shop!

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/7022

That's weird. My elevated subway line passes by that site and it was the Alps Hotel for the longest time and I've always known it had once been the RKO Chester, but I thought the Alps had been demolished and turned into a new, "clean" motel years ago. My sister stayed there when she came for my mother's funeral in Dec. 2008 and I visited her there. I've gotta keep my eyes open the next time I pass by that site and see what's there now and if I may not have confused one spot with another. Maybe I should just get off the train at that stop and just take a look.

I remember the scene in MARTY where he passes by the RKO Fordham, a theater I went to regularly from 1964 to 1980. I took pix when that theater was demolished in 1987 or so.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

For sure but please understand that i was reading the comments from Bruce before i made my posts and then Twilight Time themselves, the Kino rep seems to be two different entities, i noted the daytime UK one seemed a bit aggressive and the nighttime UK one seemed friendly, my take on it is they use two different employees with the same user name.

Reminds me of the Criterion spokesman we've all asked questions of at one time or another .. I forget 'his' name now, but that was another studio ID used by anyone who could bother to answer.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There's a reason that a lot of companies don't directly interact with fans/customers. Some of it is being afraid of criticism, not wanting to reveal announcements ahead of time, keeping industry secrets a secret, etc. But another reason is, if an individual representing the company misspeaks or gets drawn into an uncomfortable conversation, or lets an unflattering comment slip, then it's out there and the company has just embarrassed itself. It's a fine line to walk. It must be even more difficult and frustrating for the employees when the company in question is just a distributor of existing assets, but doesn't actually create anything themselves. Kino probably did the best they possibly could with the master they were given. A decision was made by Kino to license the title, and that decision being made, there was probably no way a potential release would then be canceled. So any rep who has knowledge of the situation has to wrestle with the conflicting values of "this product isn't as good as it could possibly be" and "this product is the best possible product that can be made with the resources we have". It's a tough spot to be in. And if everyone within the company isn't on the same page, PR chaos can ensue.

This is why maybe it's best for companies not to directly interact on forums, or if they're going to do so, to create some kind of internal policy on what kind of language is used, and what tone is struck. It's tough cause I'm sure they'd love to informally communicate with interested fans, but then have the pressure of making statements in public places that end up reflecting on the company as a whole.

I worked for a while for WGBH Boston Video, which later merged with PBS Video. Most of what we did were specialty releases and not the kind of titles that would usually be discussed on this forum. I would have loved to have participated here in some kind of "insider" capacity to serve as that kind of link... but there's no way the higher ups would have allowed for that. And while it was a disappointment, I can understand it... what happens if I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and then got into work and read a few posts that seemed to disparage something my coworkers might have been working hard on?

There are some things I think the Kino people could and should have answered. If you're promoting that a certain number of titles coming out are brand new scans or masters, and using that as a selling point, telling people that they should buy your releases because you've done that work, then I don't think it's inappropriate for potential consumers to ask exactly which those titles are. Now, if those titles haven't been officially announced, I think it's OK to say in response "We haven't announced the titles yet, but we will be sure to let you know once the announcement is made." But I think it's unfair for any company to say "We have some new and improved products coming out which we've already announced and you'll love" and then refuse to specify what those are. On the other hand.. they probably don't know with 100% certainty which masters had previously been passed on by Twilight Time or other distributors. There are probably confidentiality agreements between studios and distributors, precisely to prevent Distributor A from saying "We passed on that title Distributor B is putting out because the master is terrible" or "We're putting out this title because we think it looks good and Distributor A is being too fussy." So just me personally, I understand the desire to ask that question and know "Are these high quality releases similar to what other companies I love put out, or are these in such a shape that other people I trust wouldn't touch them?", but I also wouldn't expect a real answer to that question.

And being that these distributors don't compete against each other among consumers (that is, Kino and Twilight Time and Olive don't all put out the same movie at the same time), I don't think any of the companies should be taking shots at any of the others.

I wish all licensing distributors would put notes "About the Transfer" as Malcolm pointed out Criterion do. It's a very helpful bit of information. Although lately I'm a little bit concerned with the ones Criterion has been doing. They've been calling just about everything "new 4K restorations". One of their upcoming titles, "Y Tu Mama Tambien" is boasting a "brand new 4K restoration" but I question if this ten year old film was ever in need of restoration, or if this is simply a new scan of the negative. I would bet the latter, but "restoration" has become a buzz word for sales and gets thrown about far too often in my opinion. Not every film requires a restoration. And simply creating a new scan off the negative, or making a new print, is not the same as doing a restoration. And if the film is in good shape and doesn't need one, that's great! So Criterion blurbs don't seem as informative to me as they once did.

When I began this post, I was pretty sure I had a point, and now I can't remember for the life of me what I was getting at.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

For sure but please understand that i was reading the comments from Bruce before i made my posts and then Twilight Time themselves, the Kino rep seems to be two different entities, i noted the daytime UK one seemed a bit aggressive and the nighttime UK one seemed friendly, my take on it is they use two different employees with the same user name.

Reminds me of the Criterion spokesman we've all asked questions of at one time or another .. I forget 'his' name now, but that was another studio ID used by anyone who could bother to answer.

Mulvaney

 

[ThadK]

When you represent a company and you're speaking regularly for them, it's your job to maintain civility. At my station, I record/interview/deal with people I can't stand and who probably despise me on a fairly regular basis, but I always keep a straight face. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I truly didn't believe the "rep" in question actually did represent Olive or Kino (just a dude with a friend there), but after seeing the MARTY debacle play out on their official Facebook page, I'm not so sure.

 

[Persianimmortal]

There's a reason that a lot of companies don't directly interact with fans/customers. Some of it is being afraid of criticism, not wanting to reveal announcements ahead of time, keeping industry secrets a secret, etc. But another reason is, if an individual representing the company misspeaks or gets drawn into an uncomfortable conversation, or lets an unflattering comment slip, then it's out there and the company has just embarrassed itself. It's a fine line to walk.

It's never easy, but at the same time, if your job is to represent a company, you should be qualified to do it - and that means you must be willing to be extremely patient and to check your facts before saying anything. And most important of all is honesty. Anyone can make mistakes, but companies get into trouble precisely because they often go into ass-covering mode and attempt to cover up their mistakes by deception. For example, if Kino had just come out and said that the Marty transfer was the best one they could afford to obtain, and that it was zoomed and hence only worked at 1.33:1, I'm sure most of us would be a lot more lenient than when they quite assertively (and inaccurately) claim that they are releasing the correct ratio, in turn belittling experts like Bob and movie enthusiasts who know better.

Compare and contrast Kino's approach with Twilight Time's, where Nick Redman, despite the constant onslaught of criticism and second guessing of their limited edition model and higher price, has maintained dignity and honesty when interacting with us. He's also been open to feedback and has acted wherever possible, such as removing the fixed timelines which appear when discs are paused, and switching away from eco cases.

So really, not to put too fine a point on it, it all comes down to how open a company is willing to be. It is much better for a rep to just admit that time or money constraints have resulted in certain compromises, than to mouth the usual company line of "we are committed to the highest quality and we listen to our fans", then turn around and frequently release garbage, like Universal. You can never please everyone; there will always be whiners and malcontents, but I believe it is far wiser for companies to just lay their cards on the table, especially on a more mature forum such as this one.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

ThadK - exactly. When you're acting in the role of a spokesman or public voice of a company, you have to maintain civility even in the face of people who you can't stand or can't stand you, even when people are shouting insults at you. I agree that the posts sound more like a "dude with a friend there" than an official spokesperson. This almost seems like a scenario where some employee wanted to quietly throw a word in without making a big deal (and without having checked with his bosses), and quickly ended up in over his head.

Koroush, I agree with your points. Regarding Twilight Time, I've been a fan of Nick Redman ever since I first heard him on the "Clockwork Orange" commentary track with Malcolm McDowell, and I think Twilight Time does great work in the limited niche it occupies. I haven't bought a lot of TT titles because they haven't put out a ton of movies that are the kinds of titles I buy (especially at the higher price) -- I've bought three for myself, and three for my mother as gifts over the past year -- but I've been very satisfied with each and every purchase. Their plan results in fewer things that I'd buy, but when I get something from them, it's always top-notch. And they've gotten low stock warnings or sell-outs on a bunch of titles that don't appeal to me, which shows to my mind that they've got a nice variety, and have at least a little something for everyone. But not every company needs to do what Twilight Time does, and if a company doesn't want to be as engaging with the public as Mr. Redman and Co, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I do believe in honesty and transparency in the statements that are made, so if Kino (or anyone else) is only going to occasionally communicate and not fully engage in discussions or discourse, they should really be sure that everything they're saying is accurate. Just be accurate. And don't call anyone else a liar. Even if the situation was flipped, and the outside experts were wrong, and Kino was 100% right, there's still a way to express that information without resorting to namecalling and personal attacks.

 

[ahollis]

Speaking of aspect ratios, I just got a copy of the BR of The Train, and it's being put out at 1.66, just like the old DVD. Surely in the early 60s, this would have been projected at 1.75 in the UK and 1.85 in the US? Did Twilight Time contact you Bob?

The old DVD was not anamorphic so this Blu-ray is nothing like the DVD release. With the Twilight Time Blu-ray we have the OAR of the film. Something Kino does not respect with MARTY.

 

[ahollis]

ThadK - exactly. When you're acting in the role of a spokesman or public voice of a company, you have to maintain civility even in the face of people who you can't stand or can't stand you, even when people are shouting insults at you. I agree that the posts sound more like a "dude with a friend there" than an official spokesperson. This almost seems like a scenario where some employee wanted to quietly throw a word in without making a big deal (and without having checked with his bosses), and quickly ended up in over his head.Koroush, I agree with your points. Regarding Twilight Time, I've been a fan of Nick Redman ever since I first heard him on the "Clockwork Orange" commentary track with Malcolm McDowell, and I think Twilight Time does great work in the limited niche it occupies. I haven't bought a lot of TT titles because they haven't put out a ton of movies that are the kinds of titles I buy (especially at the higher price) -- I've bought three for myself, and three for my mother as gifts over the past year -- but I've been very satisfied with each and every purchase. Their plan results in fewer things that I'd buy, but when I get something from them, it's always top-notch. And they've gotten low stock warnings or sell-outs on a bunch of titles that don't appeal to me, which shows to my mind that they've got a nice variety, and have at least a little something for everyone. But not every company needs to do what Twilight Time does, and if a company doesn't want to be as engaging with the public as Mr. Redman and Co, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I do believe in honesty and transparency in the statements that are made, so if Kino (or anyone else) is only going to occasionally communicate and not fully engage in discussions or discourse, they should really be sure that everything they're saying is accurate. Just be accurate. And don't call anyone else a liar. Even if the situation was flipped, and the outside experts were wrong, and Kino was 100% right, there's still a way to express that information without resorting to namecalling and personal attacks.

Well not to bring up past news, Mr Lime did the same thing when his friend worked for Olive. I am not sure why he fells he is personally attacked since he just posts what is given to him. But, as with Olive in the past, Kino can do no wrong in his eyes.

 

[Retro00064]

I wonder if his username is "MisterLime" for a reason! Calling the company he's representing out for its idiocy seems to make him sour!

 

[ROclockCK]

The old DVD was not anamorphic so this Blu-ray is nothing like the DVD release. With the Twilight Time Blu-ray we have the OAR of the film. Something Kino does not respect with MARTY.

According to the IMDb's technical specs (admittedly not always the most accurate), they claim that The Train was framed for 1.66:1. So that *appears* to be a legit AR for this title, although as the previous poster noted, the reality of exhibition in '64 would have been projection "at 1.75:1 in the UK and 1.85:1 in the US." This is really a question for Bob I guess...

However, as proposed by several others in this thread, anything that lands between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 is certainly not a hill I would choose to die on. At 1.66:1, the film still "lives", whereas the leap from 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 to 1.85:1 or 2:1 is just too great...it's a given that the presentation will suffer in some significant way.