Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[haineshisway]

And speaking of wrong ratios, Arrow released the fun Franju film Spotlight on a Murderer - it's gotten rave reviews from everyone and not a one of these reviewers knows enough to point out the the ratio is completely wrong - and so obviously wrong that I don't know how that isn't pointed out. The film was made a year after Eyes Without a Face and just before Judex. Both of those films are not Academy and are presented correctly on their respective Blu-rays in 1.66 (although shown here in the US at 1.85). So, what would lead anyone to believe that Spotlight on a Murderer should be Academy? It's so baffling, and one look at any shot in the movie, with way too much headroom and compositions that simply don't look right, will tell you it's incorrect. So, I'm happy to be the one to point it out and call foul

 

[lark144]

And speaking of wrong ratios, Arrow released the fun Franju film Spotlight on a Murderer - it's gotten rave reviews from everyone and not a one of these reviewers knows enough to point out the the ratio is completely wrong - and so obviously wrong that I don't know how that isn't pointed out. The film was made a year after Eyes Without a Face and just before Judex. Both of those films are not Academy and are presented correctly on their respective Blu-rays in 1.66 (although shown here in the US at 1.85). So, what would lead anyone to believe that Spotlight on a Murderer should be Academy? It's so baffling, and one look at any shot in the movie, with way too much headroom and compositions that simply don't look right, will tell you it's incorrect. So, I'm happy to be the one to point it out and call foul

Thanks, Bruce, for the heads up. Not to change the subject, but how is the Franju film?

I had a similar experience recently with two Rohmer Blu-rays, FULL MOON IN PARIS & THE MARQUISE OF O, from FILM MOVEMENT. According to the back of the box, they were in the "original aspect ratio" of 1:33:1. Of course, as we all know, these films were originally projected (I saw them both at the New York Film Festival as well as the Cinema Studio across the street) in !:85:1. Now there is a revisionist movement afoot that insists that Rohmer really composed for 1:33:1 & the contemporary theater ratios of 1:85:1 were against his wishes. One can actually make a good case for this with most of Godard's films, which in fact, are VERY tightly composed for 1:33:1 & Godard even has Jean-Pierre Leaud talk about this in MASCULINE FEMININE when he goes to the cinema. However, in Rohmer's case, all one has to do is pop either of the Blu-Ray's into the player, and there is such a huge amount of space both above and beneath the actors to the point that they resemble distant galaxies seen from far away, as most of the films are in long takes with fairly wide shots, and in much of the films the actors are completely overwhelmed by the sets and places they are in. I really don't think Rohmer intended his films to be seen that way, as especially when one uses the zoom function, the compositions are quite lovely, and suddenly the actors are front and center in the frame. Also, Kino Lorber has released one Rohmer film made about the same time, PAULINE AT THE BEACH, and that is in the !:66:1 ratio and looks fantastic.

OK. End of rant.

 

[Gary Couzens]

In the case of THE MARQUISE OF O, we have a primary source for the aspect ratio - Nestor Almendros. The filmography in his book A Man With a Camera gives aspect ratios for all the features he shot, and all of the ones directed by Rohmer are 1.33:1 except for PAULINE AT THE BEACH, which is 1.66:1. I can't speak for FULL MOON IN PARIS, though that was shown in 1.37:1 at the National Film Theatre when I saw it, in 35mm.

I've seen Rohmer films projected in 1.66:1 when they should be 1.33:1 (MY NIGHT AT MAUD's and THE GREEN RAY) and you wouldn't notice if you didn't know: only a couple of shots looked unduly cropped. I suspect Rohmer and his cinematographers protected for 1.66:1 as it was likely that most cinemas would show it that way. I'm not sure you could show any of them wider than that though. The exception to this is THE LADY AND THE DUKE, which was shot digitally and is 1.85:1.

The BFI has released some films in aspect ratios which are questionable, though they're films which in most cases I haven't seen before and don't have a source for an aspect ratio. Judging by the Youtube trailer, LONG SHOT (just out) is one of them - presented in 1.37:1. It doesn't look like it should be 4:3 and there's a huge amount of headroom in every shot in the trailer - I haven't seen the whole film. This was a 35mm feature made in 1978.

 

[Matt Hough]

Last night, TCM showed the widescreen version (1.66:1) of Shane. When the Blu-ray came out, I was miffed that both the Academy and the widescreen versions weren't offered in the package, but having seen only about 15 minutes of the widescreen last night, I can see why it wasn't there: despite careful framing, it's clear the film wasn't made for widescreen. Very tight framing especially across the top made for some uncomfortable visuals. I am glad I've got the version on Blu-ray that George Stevens intended to be seen.

 

[DVDvision]

Do not want to troll, but he intended the widescreen version to be seen. 4/3 was his original intent, before the changes in the industry happened. It as been said he even swapped shots in the edit to make for better suitable to widescreen images. I myself am happy to own the Blu-ray with all three versions.
The widescreen adjusted looks very good.

 

[david hare]

I will throw this in without intending a bomb but at the recent Cinema Ritrovato in Bologna and it's Technicolor/Kinemacolor subsection, they screened three first run (dating from 1954-56) IB Tech prints from the Academy Archive of Sirk's three Ross HUnter color melodramas. Written on the Wind was shown in approx 1.75 (close enough to the Criterion and other DVDs which are 1.85) and looked great as usual yet this has been released recently on Blu Ray in France by Elephant in a very good source from Universal which has the brand new (to me) masking of 2.00:1. I thought it looked great in thsi ratio and even two and three shot Medium CUS looked fine with a great dynamic feel. In fact Ithink it looks even better in the wider crop than the previously standard 1.78. All that Heaven Allows was also screened approx 1.75 and looked fine as it always has in this ratio. To make matters even more confusing however I would swear on some reels visbily it appeared to be hard matted to that ratio. And last but not least Magnificent Obsession which was the earliest of these pictures to require Sirk and Russell Metty to think aroud protection for multiple theatircal screening practices in the States and elsewhere in 1953-4 was shown in open matte 1.37!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

All three were composed for 2:1.

David, you can read more about UI and their widescreen transition - with original studio documents - here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[david hare]

Thanks Bob. I thought the provenance of the prints themselves made the screenings especially interesting. I didn't have a chance to ask the projectionist at the Arlecchino cinema but a friend who was also at the screening of ATHA also supported my feeling it was a hard matted 1.75 or thereabouts. The 1.37 of Mag Obs was in all likelihood destined for non Stateside viewing or for projectonists with various masks to apply as they were able. It still plays well to me in Academy (and the second last reel is particularly beaitifully composed and light and headroom) but I am fully aware the studio intended widescreen and the bulk of the movie looks top heavy in Academy. I wasn't present at the Written on the Wind screening, but it was apparently also 1.75. I think the Elephant Blu Ray in France is the first and only format so far to release it in 2.00. I have absoltuely no argument with that ratio for that title.

 

[Robin9]

Written on the Wind was shown in approx 1.75 (close enough to the Criterion and other DVDs which are 1.85) and looked great as usual yet this has been released recently on Blu Ray in France by Elephant in a very good source from Universal which has the brand new (to me) masking of 2.00:1. I thought it looked great in thsi ratio and even two and three shot Medium CUS looked fine with a great dynamic feel. In fact Ithink it looks even better in the wider crop than the previously standard 1.78.

Does the French Blu-ray disc have removable sub-titles?

 

[theonemacduff]

Not to be trollish, but it occurs to me that logically, if something is "protected" for 1.66, or 1.75, or whatever, then in reality, it's being composed for those ratios, and not being composed for 1.37, which latter then becomes a concession to future TV showings; and the same rule (to call it no less) would apply to Rohmer's "protecting" for the widescreen ratio. What it means is that film-makers claiming to prefer 1.37, while in effect composing for wide-screen are, at best, "protecting" for TV showings and, at worst, fooling themselves about the business they are in. Better to be like Goddard, who, much as I dislike his output, at least sticks to his convictions (partly because he knows his audience is never going to be as big even as Rohmer's).

 

[david hare]

On my Oppo they are removeable. May not be for all players. Elephant is tricky on these.

 

[Mark Pytel]

Bob need your assistance. Scream Factory is releasing Attack of the Puppet People (1958) on bluray. They are saying that the OAR is 1:33. I mentioned that all films around that time were composed for widescreen. They are saying that it is definately 1:33 and they've seen the new master. Can you confirm what the ratio is? You may want to contact Scream/ Shout since this is coming out in November.
Thanks a bunch

-Mark

 

[Bob Furmanek]

They are mistaken.

It was released in the summer of 1958 with WAR OF THE COLOSSAL BEAST. Both films were composed for widescreen.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here are some frames from Gordon's 1.85:1 theatrical release. As you can see, the compositions and titles block perfectly for widescreen, as intended by the filmmakers.

This is most certainly not a standard ratio film.

 

[DVDvision]

But boxy is beautiful! Boxy WHOO WHOOOO!!!
I hope they fix this, if not, then their boxy edition will at least sell one copy and then they will complain that no one is interested in back catalogue reissues, except that guy from somewhere in hollywood who think that all film prior to Star Wars were boxy.

 

[haineshisway]

Bob need your assistance. Scream Factory is releasing Attack of the Puppet People (1958) on bluray. They are saying that the OAR is 1:33. I mentioned that all films around that time were composed for widescreen. They are saying that it is definately 1:33 and they've seen the new master. Can you confirm what the ratio is? You may want to contact Scream/ Shout since this is coming out in November.
Thanks a bunch

-Mark

As Bob has already informed you, it was 1.85 and they will be ridiculed and not supported if they release it open matte. Enough already. I can e-mail Mr. BIG if that helps. No theaters could have shown this full frame in 1958. This nonsense has to stop and shame on Shout Factory - either they've seen a zoomed in master or they've seen an open matte master with head room that no director in his right mind would have had. I'm happy to talk to them.

 

[haineshisway]

Just wrote them the following:

Hi. Very excited you're releasing Bert Gordon's Attack of the Puppet People, my favorite of his films. I have just learned at the Home Theatre Forum that you intend to release it in Academy ratio. This film was, like all films back then, shot open matte, but framed for theatrical exhibition at 1.85. By 1958 there were virtually no theaters that could show Academy. Please do not make this mistake. I have been friends with Mr. Gordon for many years - I helped him edit his book on his films and knew Susan, his daughter since high school. I saw Attack of the Puppet People at the Wiltern Theater in LA in 1958 - they could not and did not show films in Academy ratio. If MGM/UA have zoomed in the transfer so there's no head room, that's one thing and very bad. If they have presented you with an open matte transfer, then the silly headroom will be VERY apparent and is not something any thinking filmmaker or cameraman would allow. Bob Furmenkek has put up frame samples from the film framed correctly and that tells the tale better than anything or anyone could. It's under the Aspect Ratio thread. Please do not make this mistake - the DVD was a travesty and you have the opportunity to do this correctly.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Puppet is currently on Amazon Prime and it's the old "Orion" transfer at 1.37. Hit the "full screen" button on the projector and it zooms to 1.78 and looks just about right. Assuming this is a transfer with a slight zoom-in, 1.85 would definitely be correct.

 

[Mark Pytel]

As Bob has already informed you, it was 1.85 and they will be ridiculed and not supported if they release it open matte. Enough already. I can e-mail Mr. BIG if that helps. No theaters could have shown this full frame in 1958. This nonsense has to stop and shame on Shout Factory - either they've seen a zoomed in master or they've seen an open matte master with head room that no director in his right mind would have had. I'm happy to talk to them.

Honestly, I'd for sure e-mail Mr. BIG himself. He could then get in contact with Shout Factory/ Cliff Macmilian and tell them that he wants his film done right. Heck, maybe they might enlist him for an interview. I think if they hear it from the actual director of the movie, that would really help get this done right.

That's really cool that you helped him on his book. Being in the industry for so long. I'm sure he had some amazing stories to tell.

 

[haineshisway]

Do you have a direct e-mail for Mr. Macmilian?