Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

THE TRAIN is composed for 1.85:1 and may be hard-matted to 1.66:1. I'd have to examine a 35mm element.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Bob,
I think that's true, because it looks fine at 1.66

 

[Gary Couzens]

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.

That isn't a first for that film, I'm afraid. Optimum/StudioCanal released it on DVD as part of a four-film Malle boxset in 2006, which I reviewed for The Digital Fix at the time. Their transfer of Zazie was in 1.33:1. I questioned that in my review, as I'd seen Zazie in the cinema in 35mm (about twenty-five years ago now) and it was shown wide then - either 1.66:1 or 1.75:1, can't remember now. The ratios of the other titles in the box are correct as far as I know: L'ascenseur de l'echafaud and Le feu follet in 1.66:1, Les amants on 2.35:1.

I don't have the same player now as I did then, so I may find my old review checkdisc and try watching it zoomed to "1.5x" which comes to 1.66:1 for a 4:3 disc. It's not a particular favourite film of mine, though.

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.

I saw a bit of that. It wasn't billed as HD or even widescreen in Radio Times, so I suspect it's an old copy upscale. I'm pretty sure that one would be intended for 1.85:1 too.

 

[Douglas R]

On the subject of Criterion I see they have "Ali:Fear Eats the Soul" (1974) at 1.33:1 which can't be right. Possibly 1.66:1 but the picture also looks perfectly framed at 1.75:1. They do seem to have an overly liking for full frame, regardless as to the OAR.

 

[theonemacduff]

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.

I'm aware that the older DVD was non-anamorphic (s'why I'm replacing it), but the AR is the same on both the DVD and the BR. Hence my question, given that there is a lot of evidence (posted on this very thread) that US exhibitors switched to 1.85, and UK exhibitors switched to 1.75, long, long before 1964. Here's another answer to my question --

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

-- which strikes me as likely to be correct.

And according to Bob's post above (only just saw it, as I was typing) the film was exhibited at 1.85, so that's what I would have preferred. It's sort of OK at 1.66, but I would rather things were correct, than just OK.

Of course, none of this is to criticize the quality of the Twilight Time disc: the image is absolutely stellar. One can finally see the flight of Mosquito fighters in the far distance as they circle around into position to strafe the train. Watching the DVD, I always wondered whether they had just flown the same one plane past several times.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Bob,
I think that's true, because it looks fine at 1.66

Bob,

I think Birdman of Alcatraz is coming from TT later this year. What is its OAR?

 

[Jari K]

"it was a question to Kino and your take on it is wrong"I didn't say that your question was wrong. But this sudden speculation that Kino is releasing mediocre transfers (and even that they're "leftovers" from TT) can easily take the wrong turn. Soon speculation turns into rumors and rumors turns into "facts". In the forums, I mean. It's just not fair for any company, especially when these companies are bringing good titles to BD. If some release is mediocre (or even bad, but I don't see that being the case - not even in Marty) we obviously should tell it like it is. But at the end of the day it's just one release from many."One of the things i like about Criterion is they give some technical details in the little booklet with each release.."I fully agree. I love to read this type of info. But do I expect Criterion to share this type of info on the internet forums before the release is out? Not sure. I just feel that it's mainly PR that's shared on the forums. And it's true that Kino's "PR person" just took some comments a bit too personally. He didn't remember the golden rule: Don't start to argue with the movie geeks on the internet! They cannot be reasoned with!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Bob,

I think Birdman of Alcatraz is coming from TT later this year. What is its OAR?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Thanks Bob! The DVD from MGM was non-anamorphic 1.66

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Another one that's probably hard-matted.

I suspect that when these transfers were done, they realized the films were widescreen but could not locate documentation.

1.66:1 was a safe way to almost get it right!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Another one that's probably hard-matted.

I suspect that when these transfers were done, they realized the films were widescreen but could not locate documentation.

1.66:1 was a safe way to almost get it right!

Gotcha, as I stated beforehand, the 1.66 ratio looked fine for The Train.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Right now, TCM is showing two British films from 1966: Georgy Girl (w/James Mason) and Blow-Up (w/David Hemmings). Georgy Girl is shown on TCM at 1:33:1/1.37:1. Blow-Up looks like the original theatrical presentation, though.

I think both films were meant to be at 1.75:1 in their native Britain. Unless the Dr. No British review posted earlier in this thread that said it was in 1.85:1 proved us wrong.

Bob, do you know if both films were in 1.75:1 or 1.85:1?

Another thing: TCM is using the American print of Blow-Up. The original British print began with the MGM logo.

 

[FoxyMulder]

In another thread we are talking about the Kirk Douglas film from 1955, Man Without A Star, being released on blu ray in Germany with a 2:1 aspect ratio, a reply says that 2:1 was the in house ratio for Universal at the time that film came out, i thought the film would be 1.85:1 but who knows, well i'm guessing Bob knows for sure so can i ask here what the aspect ratio should be for this film.

 

[Mark-P]

In another thread we are talking about the Kirk Douglas film from 1955, Man Without A Star, being released on blu ray in Germany with a 2:1 aspect ratio, a reply says that 2:1 was the in house ratio for Universal at the time that film came out, i thought the film would be 1.85:1 but who knows, well i'm guessing Bob knows for sure so can i ask here what the aspect ratio should be for this film.

Bob already provided documentation for A Man Without a Star in this very thread.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Bob already provided documentation for A Man Without a Star in this very thread.

Thanks for the link, much appreciated, then 2:1 is correct, that's great news, it means the German release is correct.

 

[Robert Crawford]

In another thread we are talking about the Kirk Douglas film from 1955, Man Without A Star, being released on blu ray in Germany with a 2:1 aspect ratio, a reply says that 2:1 was the in house ratio for Universal at the time that film came out, i thought the film would be 1.85:1 but who knows, well i'm guessing Bob knows for sure so can i ask here what the aspect ratio should be for this film.

I watched that BD today and It looks very good as I thought the 2:1 looked right to me. I'm glad Bob confirmed my opinion.

 

[Doug Bull]

There was no hard matte on the trailer, but plenty of headroom.

Doug.

 

[Yorkshire]

You keep saying Olive in referencing Marty - it's Kino, not Olive.

My apologies - senior moment.

Steve W

 

[Douglas R]

I posted this message about the aspect ratio of HELP in the thread about that BD release. Copied here for info:


I've been researching Kine Weekly and this is from the December 16, 1965 issue which gives the aspect ratio of HELP as 1.85:1 on 1.65 head room. I assume they mean the picture was composed for screens of any aspect ratio between 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. However, Kine Weekly also shows that in 1965 very few films British were being shot for 1.66. They were either 1.75 or 1.85.

 

[Paul Penna]

Could "on 1.65 head room" be their way of indicating the prints were hard-matted?