Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Yorkshire]

What's the evidence again that the majority of UK cinemas projected at 1.66:1 regardless of recommendation, and that they did this right through into the late 70s? I must have missed it.

Even if it is the case though, I don't think it precludes 1.75:1 being the composed for ratio. It is after all, mentioned as well. The difference is so small* that I doubt the film makers would have been beside themselves to see their compositions receive a tad bit more space. Don't forget that many of these films were being shipped over to the US as well, where 1.85:1 was completely set in stone. Better to compose at 1.75:1 and lose a sliver of image in American cinemas, than to compose at 1.66:1 and lose a fair sized chunk, even if it means UK cinemas showing too much.

On the matting, I think it was identified earlier in the thread that Odeon had a 'house matte' of 1.66:1 and (I think) ABC at 1.75:1. My understanding is that Odeon were by far the biggest UK chain, though I stand to be corrected.

On the second part, this is where it gets to be a minefield.

I think we really need to be talking about different things. You can take any legitimate 1.66:1 film and crop to 1.85:1 and you won't end up with a ridiculous image where the actor's head is cut off right through the eyes. But it will look a little tight. But actor's heads are only one part of frame composition.

On the one hand you could argue that it's simply impossible to compose for more than one ratio, though that's not something I totally agree with. I think you can compose a frame for 1.66:1, but ensure there's never anything so tight that it simply won't work in 1.85:1, indeed it's clearly very easy.

If you watch most films you'll see some shots where the camera is a little tighter and the tops of heads are clipped. As long as there's not too much clipping it shouldn't look too bad at all.

In short, it's very easy to compose for any ratio but ensure that nothing is too clipped if cropped to a wider (less-tall) ratio.
I agree about The Mummy - it looks spot on at 1.66:1, but try it at 1.85:1 and it's far from unwatchable. I think there were comments earlier in the thread that suggested projectionists would shift the matte at the start of a film so that heads weren't clipped. This would mean US audiences seeing (for example) The Mummy in 1.85:1 but with a common top with the 1.66:1. You notice the tightness less when it's someone's belt that's clipped as opposed to their head.

I think I've said before, I'd love to get some interviews with pople who worked at the time and see how they worked this, because the oner thing they definitely knew is that their films would definitely be cropped to different ratios in different cinemas. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't do what I've suggested happened with The Mummy - shoot at 1.66:1, knowing the US viewer would see the same top line, so don't put anything vital at the bottom.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

I think we really need to be talking about different things. You can take any legitimate 1.66:1 film and crop to 1.85:1 and you won't end up with a ridiculous image where the actor's head is cut off right through the eyes. But it will look a little tight. But actor's heads are only one part of frame composition.

Oh I dunno, look at these screenshots to see what a genuine 1.66:1 film looks like at 1.78:1:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/All-Ladies-Do-It-Blu-ray/64734/#Screenshots

Not pretty.

As for top lines, the only problem there is centered credits and location/date titles get shifted downwards. I wonder how often that happened in practice?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If I'm not mistaken, the Odeon 1.66:1 comment is from some very early widescreen research done by Jack Theakston circa 2007. I believe Jack got the information from a 1990's article in a BKSTS magazine. I'm not saying it's not accurate, but I'd like to see some actual period documentation to support that statement.

The truly important data in 2014 was the ratio that each film was composed for during principal photography, the one that the director and DP were intending. That's what is significant now as these films are mastered in HD and that's why Doug's new research in Kine Weekly is SO important. It shows that the UK 1.66:1 myth is just that - a myth.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Bob, I have just added this bit of trivia to the IMDB page on Elephant Walk. Hope lots of people find it interesting. By adding this bit of trivia, I hope more people are aware of aspect ratios, and how films SHOULD be presented.

Paramount's last 1.37:1 production. Future films from Paramount would either be shot in 1.37:1 and composed for Widescreen presentation, or shot in Widescreen and composed for Widescreen presentation.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's great, thank you Vahan.

Ironically, the troubled ELEPHANT WALK shoot was still in progress when Paramount converted to 100% widescreen cinematography.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The first widescreen feature from Hecht-Lancaster Productions gets the deluxe ballyhoo treatment at New York's Mayfair Theatre on July 10, 1954.

I'd sure like to see this in widescreen on Blu-ray!

 

[Robert Crawford]

The first widescreen feature from Hecht-Lancaster Productions gets the deluxe ballyhoo treatment at New York's Mayfair Theatre on July 10, 1954.

I'd sure like to see this in widescreen on Blu-ray!

Apache Mayfair.jpg

Hell, yeah! One of the most underrated westerns ever made in my opinion.

 

[Vic Pardo]

The first widescreen feature from Hecht-Lancaster Productions gets the deluxe ballyhoo treatment at New York's Mayfair Theatre on July 10, 1954.

I'd sure like to see this in widescreen on Blu-ray!

Apache Mayfair.jpg

Love that picture. The Mayfair had become the DeMille by the time I started going to Times Square and on my first trip to the area, THE GREAT ESCAPE was on that billboard and I made sure to see it when it came to the Bronx about three months later.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It was the last surviving movie palace on Times Square. After sitting vacant for many years, it was gutted and turned into a barbecue restaurant.

I was outside when demolition began and heard workers banging away at the ornate plaster with hammers. I went in and picked up a small piece as a souvenir.

Progress, huh?

 

[Dr Griffin]

Good God, Bob! Could you post a disclaimer before you relate these type of stories: "Reader discretion advised, women and children should leave the room!"

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Uh oh, do you mean that I should have gotten a larger piece?

Plaster is heavy you know!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

For the theater buffs, here's the RKO Mayfair in 1930.

Just to show that I'm not off-topic, it was designed with wide screen capability!

 

[Dr Griffin]

Uh oh, do you mean that I should have gotten a larger piece? Plaster is heavy you know!

I am squeamish about old theater demolition.

 

[ahollis]

It was the last surviving movie palace on Times Square. After sitting vacant for many years, it was gutted and turned into a barbecue restaurant.I was outside when demolition began and heard workers banging away at the ornate plaster with hammers. I went in and picked up a small piece as a souvenir.Progress, huh?

Oh good lord I hope someone would have the integrity to save this theatre. I lived in CT for about 6 years and traveled to NYC about every weekend. I passed this forgotten theatre many many times and hope there would be a happy ending to its history. As a southerner, I always love Barbecue but never here.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It was a Famous Dave's barbecue but the theater is being completely gutted now to the brick walls. At least when it was the restaurant, much of the ceiling and proscenium ornamentation was still there.

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/501/photos

 

[haineshisway]

Just watched Tarantula on the German import. I believe the box says 1.78 and that seems about right. The framing works fine, although it would be better even a little bit more at 1.85 - slight difference, though. They also included the open matte version - horrible. Why they would include it is anyone's guess - it is so clearly not framed for that ratio - such a joke all that head room you could drive a truck through. No one in their right mind could ever think a filmmaker would frame a movie that way.

But the other more interesting question I asked as I watched was - this would also frame well at 2.1 - was this one of those films? Because even in 1.78 there's extraneous head room in almost every shot. Nothing terrible, but a little looser than I'm used to seeing.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

U-I recommended 1.85:1 for TARANTULA. I believe some of the effects shots would be compromised in 2:1.

The original companion feature RUNNING WILD is also listed for 1.85:1.

 

[haineshisway]

U-I recommended 1.85:1 for TARANTULA. I believe some of the effects shots would be compromised in 2:1.

Tarantula.JPG

The original companion feature RUNNING WILD is also listed for 1.85:1.

Tarantula 11.26.55.jpg

Good to know. It certainly looks good at 1.78 - BTW, the big monster continually goes out of frame whether in open matte or 1.85.

 

[Yorkshire]

As for top lines, the only problem there is centered credits and location/date titles get shifted downwards. I wonder how often that happened in practice?

Without reading this entire thread again, this is what I remember being said.

A projectionist would put on what they thought was the appropriate matte, then display titles at ther centre (unless they were clearly off-centre anyway).

They'd then move the matte until heads were correct and leave it for the rest of the film.

If my memory is incorrect on this I apologise, but that's what I remember being said. If anyone wants to read back...

I don't think you can shoot for that as such, but if the top line effectively always going to be correct (because the projectionist will make it so) then you're only really worrying about the lower portion of the image (1.85:1 cropped from 1.66:1 from the bottom).

Steve W

 

[Matt Hough]

Just watched Tarantula on the German import. I believe the box says 1.78 and that seems about right. The framing works fine, although it would be better even a little bit more at 1.85 - slight difference, though. They also included the open matte version - horrible. Why they would include it is anyone's guess - it is so clearly not framed for that ratio - such a joke all that head room you could drive a truck through. No one in their right mind could ever think a filmmaker would frame a movie that way.

The version I have of Tarantula on DVD is open matte, and I ALWAYS zoom it to make it look like it should. Universal should NEVER have released it at anything but its correct aspect ratio, but they're NOTORIOUS for botching that (the widescreen Abbott and Costellos, Female on the Beach, etc.) I had to zoom The Monolith Monsters the other day because it, too, was released open matte.