Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[DVDvision]

I know it's a long shot, but I saw the restoration of Deadlier than the male from Julien Duvivier last week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlier_Than_the_Male_(1956_film)

It was restored in 1.37:1. But to me it appeared the bottom information was correct, whereas the scanner was adjusted to fill the top up to 1.37:1.

I think it probably should be 1.66:1. Could anyone share any eventual info?

 

[haineshisway]

No one has to have anything in their files about Odds Against Tomorrow because in the year in which it was made there were no theaters in the US that could show it in Academy, other than maybe an old art house and this film had a very wide release - it was 1.85 everywhere and Mr. Wise knew what he was doing and how his film would be projected. And Rob Ray's point above is probably the correct interpretation for the misleading information at the AFI.

 

[theonemacduff]

Rob Ray, I take the point. But if I mis-read the sentence – and in my defense, it is poorly constructed, with the word "formula" implying that both black and white and aspect ratio are intended – perhaps the BFI guys misread it too? If you click around on the AFI page, there is some additional info relating to black and white, that Wise used infra-red film, again to enhance the "grittiness," so that makes it even more likely that the comments refer not to Academy Ratio, but black and white. The "infra-red" statement is supported by a quotation from Wise.

 

[theonemacduff]

As we've seen many times in this thread, by 1959, many theatres would not have had the capability of exhibiting in the 1.37:1 ratio, hence the headroom in many of the Beaver's screencaps, allowing for projection at up to 1.85:1. (I tried to quote Haines' post (6402) but flubbed the mission; please take it as context.)

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From the UK publication, Films and Filming: 1960

 

[rdimucci]

Rob Ray, I take the point. But if I mis-read the sentence – and in my defense, it is poorly constructed, with the word "formula" implying that both black and white and aspect ratio are intended – perhaps the BFI guys misread it too?

One need not get to the word " formula" to understand the phrase "The film also marks the last time Wise shot black and white film in the standard aspect ratio." Wise's two prior films, RUN SILENT RUN DEEP and I WANT TO LIVE were also shot in B&W and in the standard aspect ratio, i.e., the standard aspect ratio for 1958, which was 1.85:1. The next (and final) films that Wise would shoot in B&W--TWO FOR THE SEESAW and THE HAUNTING--would not be in the standard aspect ratio, but in Panavision.

And the phrase "a filming formula which gave his films the gritty realism they were known for" applies to both the B&W and the aspect ratio as much for films like I WANT TO LIVE (1.85:1) as it did to films like THE HOUSE ON TELEGRAPH HILL (1.33:1).

The AFI Catalog, by the way, says nothing at all about the aspect ratio for any of the films I just mentioned (other than noting that the Panavision films are in Panavision).

 

[Keith Cobby]

How ever it was shown the Beaver screen caps look perfectly OK to me, every shot nicely framed. I'll make a confident prediction that it won't be released in any other AR.

 

[John Maher_289910]

The point that the AFI article was trying to make when it stated

"The film also marks the last time Wise shot black and white film in the standard aspect ratio—a filming formula which gave his films the gritty realism they were known for."

was that this film was last one shot in black and white by Mr. Wise in anything but 2:35 anamorphic widescreen. The above statement does not mean that ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW was meant for Academy-ratio projection.

Neither THE SOUND OF MUSIC nor STAR! are anamorphic widescreen; but I get your point.

 

[Joel Arndt]

Bob, I'm sure this is mentioned somewhere, but I picked up Criterion's Black Orpheus (1959) Blu-ray this weekend and it's presented in Academy ratio. Is that correct for this title?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Bob, I'm sure this is mentioned somewhere, but I picked up Criterion's Black Orpheus (1959) Blu-ray this weekend and it's presented in Academy ratio. Is that correct for this title?

Does THIS help, Joel? It's the only other mention of Black Orpheus I could find in the thread.

 

[Joel Arndt]

Does THIS help, Joel? It's the only other mention of Black Orpheus I could find in the thread.

Yes, thanks Mike.

 

[RolandL]

Right. Ultra-Panavision 70 films (which were mainly, but not exclusively produced for single-projector Cinerama):
Mutiny on the Bounty
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Fall of the Roman Empire
The Greatest Story Ever Told
The Hallelujah Trail
Battle of the Bulge
Khartoum
(Hopefully I haven't missed any this time).
My notes show that Playtime was shot in straight 65mm, no squeeze. Ultra-Panavision added a 1.25 squeeze to the regular 70mm 2.2 AR to get the 2.76:1.

As far as how the Ultra Panavision prints were shown at movie theatres (from widescreenmuseum.com)

Mutiny on the Bounty 2.55
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World 2.6
The Fall of the Roman Empire 2.2 (only flat 70mm prints)
The Greatest Story Ever Told 2.6
The Hallelujah Trail 2.6
Battle of the Bulge 2.6
Khartoum 2.6

Some Cinerama theatres had a curved 2.76:1 screen, others with a much smaller AR.

 

[zoetmb]

As far as how the Ultra Panavision prints were shown at movie theatres (from widescreenmuseum.com)

Mutiny on the Bounty 2.55
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World 2.6
The Fall of the Roman Empire 2.2 (only flat 70mm prints)
The Greatest Story Ever Told 2.6
The Hallelujah Trail 2.6
Battle of the Bulge 2.6
Khartoum 2.6

Some Cinerama theatres had a curved 2.76:1 screen, others with a much smaller AR.

I don't necessarily buy that because there would be no one fixed ratio across all theatres. It would depend upon the architecture of the theater, screen size, throw to the booth, projection lenses used, whether it was a flat or curved screen, etc.

Like IMAX, the appeal of Cinerama wasn't width - it was overall size.

 

[RolandL]

I don't necessarily buy that because there would be no one fixed ratio across all theatres. It would depend upon the architecture of the theater, screen size, throw to the booth, projection lenses used, whether it was a flat or curved screen, etc.

Like IMAX, the appeal of Cinerama wasn't width - it was overall size.

Yes, I just wanted people to know that movies filmed in Ultra Panavision, were not always shown at a movie theatre 2.76. Not all Cinerama theatres had a screen than could even show 2.76 without masking the top/bottom.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Martin Hart over at widescreenmuseum.com makes a compelling argument for most UP titles being shown at less than 2.76:1. The actual ratio of a Cinerama screen was closer to 2.6:1 in any event.

 

[zoetmb]

Martin Hart over at widescreenmuseum.com makes a compelling argument for most UP titles being shown at less than 2.76:1. The actual ratio of a Cinerama screen was closer to 2.6:1 in any event.

There was no official aspect ratio for Cinerama. There's always confusion about the AR because of the deeply curved screen (usually 128 degrees). It depends whether you measure the arc (2.76) or straight across the arc (2.6).

Furthermore, in Cinerama theatres built for Cinerama, there was no masking. The screen was wall to wall and floor to ceiling. That's how both Loews Cinerama and the Warner Cinerama in NYC were built.

If a theater didn't have enough height and the image was cropped vertically, that would increase the AR, not decrease it.

In a regular theater, if an UltraPanavision film was shown, it would usually be shown at 2.75:1, but that meant a smaller image than a 70mm 2.2:1 AR because it was generally projected at common width, making the vertical smaller. That was the problem with the recent 70mm presentations of The Hateful Eight and it's the problem with all widescreen movies projected digitally. Common width was a big mistake in the digital standards.

 

[RolandL]

My comments are in bold below.

There was no official aspect ratio for Cinerama. There's always confusion about the AR because of the deeply curved screen (usually 128 degrees). It depends whether you measure the arc (2.76) or straight across the arc (2.6).

Originally all Cinerama screens were 146 degrees. Later some theatres were fitted with 120 degree screens. All the screens were louvered. Starting in the mid-sixties some theatres installed screens with 90 degree curves , some of them single sheet. Measuring straight across from the right and left edge of the screen would look to be about 2:1.

Furthermore, in Cinerama theatres built for Cinerama, there was no masking. The screen was wall to wall and floor to ceiling. That's how both Loews Cinerama and the Warner Cinerama in NYC were built. If a theater didn't have enough height and the image was cropped vertically, that would increase the AR, not decrease it.

There was a masking of sort for the three panel travelogues as the prologue would start at 1.33 and the height and width would expand to 2.6 for the rest of the film. See the London Casino below. Later for 70mm Cinerama and other film formats, there was masking of the top, bottom and sides of the screen.

In a regular theater, if an UltraPanavision film was shown, it would usually be shown at 2.75:1, but that meant a smaller image than a 70mm 2.2:1 AR because it was generally projected at common width, making the vertical smaller. That was the problem with the recent 70mm presentations of The Hateful Eight and it's the problem with all widescreen movies projected digitally. Common width was a big mistake in the digital standards.

Ultra Panavision films were shown at 2.2 to 2.5 at regular theatres. See the info below from Widescreen Museum.

While it was possible to use the entire 2.76:1 image on the theatre screen, as a matter of practice the ratio was kept at about 2.5:1 so that theatres weren't required to install new wider screens or curtail the height of those already installed. Initial 35mm anamorphic prints were matted to yield a 2.5:1 aspect ratio with Magoptical soundtracks. So despite the total 2.76:1 aspect ratio, critical information was kept within an area of 2.35 to 2.5:1. There is evidence that "Ben-Hur" played in 70mm in its premiere engagement in certain theatres with prints optically created to conform to the Todd-AO 2.21:1 ratio.

 

[RolandL]

Back From Eternity is on TCM right now and its 1.33. Shouldn't it be 1.85?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, 1.85 on BACK FROM ETERNITY.

 

[zoetmb]

My comments are in bold below.

The London Casino was not a purpose built Cinerama theatre and was totally different from the Loews and Warners in NYC. There was no stage and no proscenium at the NY theatres. And unless someone shows me a photo demonstrating otherwise, I will continue to maintain that the screen was floor to ceiling and wall to wall.

The Loews Astor Plaza (1974-2004) was also built for Cinerama, but no Cinerama film ever played there. While there was no stage or proscenium there either, there was some masking and/or side or top curtains.

I know that for "This Is Cinerama" it opens with a single smaller 35mm image that had masking, but I really think that's besides the point.