Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

I remember the producer of the A&C box set telling me that "Abbott and Costello never made a widescreen film" and Universal's policy is to always release their films "in the original aspect ratio."

And this guy was paid to work on the project!

 

[Matt Hough]

I remember the producer of the A&C box set telling me that "Abbott and Costello never made a widescreen film" and Universal's policy is to always release their films "in the original aspect ratio."

And this guy was paid to work on the project!

Always release films in their original aspect ratios! What a joke!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You're telling me.

I went back and forth with him and he kept insisting that I was wrong. When I finally sent documentation he got very quiet and then sheepishly admitted that the studio did not have widescreen masters and would not pay for a new transfer.

They would have done CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in open-matte and 3-D if we didn't go banging on some doors. In fact, they had already started on it and their paid consultant didn't realize it was a widescreen film.

 

[ahollis]

At they listened to you this time. I'm damn glad they did.

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

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

Some FX shots are even problematic at 1.85. But it is ironic - if you look very closely you can see how much effort went into the work to protect the film at 1.37, 1.85 and even 2.00 in most cases.
By the way, I have taken a look at THIS ISLAND EARTH again, and while in most shots 2.00 is pretty much on the spot some shots such as in the space ship don't work anymore as these are too tight. Kind of similar to TARANTULA.

 

[Vic Pardo]

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?

Damn! When did that happen? I was there just about a year ago and haven't passed by it recently. A lot can happen in a year. Here are some pix I took then of what used to be the marquee, the one that says "Going Out of Business." You can see some details of the original architecture in some of the shots:

And here's what that billboard looked like:

 

[Bob Furmanek]

They're gutting the interior as we speak. Somebody asked one of the construction workers and he said the building is being "repurposed..."

 

[TravisR]

Since they saved New York City in the 1990's, what hasn't been ruined by gentrification? Granted, you can walk the streets without fear of a maniac killing you but the whole place is a commercialized dump now.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Since they saved New York City in the 1990's, what hasn't been ruined by gentrification? Granted, you can walk the streets without fear of a maniac killing you but the whole place is a commercialized dump now.

I mean, I will come out in favor of not being killed by a maniac on my way home from work...

 

[FoxyMulder]

you can walk the streets without fear of a maniac killing you but the whole place is a commercialized dump now.

What if the maniac works in advertising, by day he is a mild mannered nobody sitting in an office figuring out ways to make you part with your cash but by night he stalks the New York streets looking for his victims, i'll pitch that one to Paramount next week.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

What if the maniac works in advertising, by day he is a mild mannered nobody sitting in an office figuring out ways to make you part with your cash but by night he stalks the New York streets looking for his victims, i'll pitch that one to Paramount next week.

I'm sure that sounds like more than one person's boss around here...

 

[Brandon Conway]

Call it USA Maniac

 

[ROclockCK]

What if the maniac works in advertising, by day he is a mild mannered nobody sitting in an office figuring out ways to make you part with your cash but by night he stalks the New York streets looking for his victims, i'll pitch that one to Paramount next week.

Potent concept. Why not call it something like American Psychopath...?

 

[Thomas T]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask.

I decided to watch Baby Doll (1956) tonight in memory of the dear departed Eli Wallach. I was taken aback that the film was 1.37. I looked at the back of the Warners DVD which stated, "Standard version presented in a format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition". In 1956? Would a major film studio (Warners) have released such a prestigious project (written by Tennessee Williams, directed by Elia Kazan) in the old Academy ratio?

I don't mind that it's 1.37 if that was Kazan's intention and it played theaters that way. But it doesn't sound logical.

 

[Mark B]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask.I decided to watch Baby Doll (1956) tonight in memory of the dear departed Eli Wallach. I was taken aback that the film was 1.37. I looked at the back of the Warners DVD which stated, "Standard version presented in a format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition". In 1956? Would a major film studio (Warners) have released such a prestigious project (written by Tennessee Williams, directed by Elia Kazan) in the old Academy ratio?I don't mind that it's 1.37 if that was Kazan's intention and it played theaters that way. But it doesn't sound logical.

No way. I'm sure this was just WB's excuse for having to use the master provided by Castle Hill.

 

[Thomas T]

No way. I'm sure this was just WB's excuse for having to use the master provided by Castle Hill.

I used the zoom feature which indicates the 1.37 transfer is an open matte. It played perfectly if a tad tight at approx. 1.85. The opening credit titles were perfectly aligned to the middle of the screen with nothing chopped off. The framing looked good, no lopped off heads and the action squarely within the frame.

 

[Yorkshire]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask.

I decided to watch Baby Doll (1956) tonight in memory of the dear departed Eli Wallach. I was taken aback that the film was 1.37. I looked at the back of the Warners DVD which stated, "Standard version presented in a format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition". In 1956? Would a major film studio (Warners) have released such a prestigious project (written by Tennessee Williams, directed by Elia Kazan) in the old Academy ratio?

I don't mind that it's 1.37 if that was Kazan's intention and it played theaters that way. But it doesn't sound logical.

A quick question, is there any documentation on the following.

In '56 - indeed in the late '50s and '60s - was it not possible to project 1.37:1 ?

Did it not simply involve removing the masking plate - something they'd have to do for anmamorphic 2.35:1 anyway?

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

There is no documentation available on theaters that retained the ability to run 1.37:1 after the transition to widescreen to 1953. They would have had to keep their old lenses and aperture plates as well as the capability to mask the image for the old ratio. That's highly unlikely as once the new screens and masking was installed, there was no intention to go back to the standard ratio.

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."

Robert A. Mitchell was a leading authority on all aspects of motion picture projection and technology. His monthly technical papers for International Projectionist led to the 1957 publication of “Manual of Practical Projection,” an essential book containing the very best of his extremely detailed articles. ​

​

In June 1956, he stated the following: “The trend toward wider-than-normal theatre screens is now so well established that the conventional 4:3-proportioned screen has become a rarity. Only a few theatres have retained the normal screen when wide screens are used for CinemaScope projection, and almost none have changed back to the standard aspect ratio after giving non-anamorphic widescreen pictures a fair trial.”​

As a comparison, if you do research on theaters in the early and mid-1930's, there is no indication that any theater that wished to remain competitive went back to running silent films.

BABY DOLL is 1.85:1.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask.

I decided to watch Baby Doll (1956) tonight in memory of the dear departed Eli Wallach. I was taken aback that the film was 1.37. I looked at the back of the Warners DVD which stated, "Standard version presented in a format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition". In 1956? Would a major film studio (Warners) have released such a prestigious project (written by Tennessee Williams, directed by Elia Kazan) in the old Academy ratio?

I don't mind that it's 1.37 if that was Kazan's intention and it played theaters that way. But it doesn't sound logical.

Incidentally, that was typical of the spin and mindset before we began our widescreen research and documentation in 2007.

 

[Matt Hough]

Warners puts out some great releases and has been very instrumental in their Archive program of really going beyond the call of duty to get things as right as possible. But they're certainly not infallible. There are a number of Warner discs that are not matted correctly.