Aspect Ratio Documentation (8 Viewers)

[Gary Couzens]

I would guess 1.66:1 as that's the ratio Truffaut seemed to favour, other than for his Scope films. (IIRC Fahrenheit 451 is 1.85:1 but I don't have anything to check that on hand, but in that case that's an English-language film so more likely to play outside arthouses in the UK and USA.) We have Nestor Almendros's word that all the nine Truffaut films he shot were 1.66:1 but he didn't shoot this one.

 

[Jack Theakston]

A lot of scenes do look like that. Although there is this one that DVD Beaver posted that still leaves me a bit puzzled.

It's a tight close-up. At 1.66-1, the eyeline is right on the top third and his mouth is on the bottom third line.

 

[Brent Reid]

Re the still above - so apparently you've never watched a widescreen movie before? Because had you you would see similar compositions to that in every single one of them.

"A widescreen movie" – what's that? As has been proven repeatedly in this very thread, one can definitively ascertain correct ARs by as little as a single screenshot. Thank you so much for bestowing on us yet more of your expert opinion.

Meanwhile in other news, before we drift off into the realms of conjecture and as per the title of this thread, does anyone have any actual documentary evidence as to Truffaut's preferred ratio for this particular film, and what its enforced theatrical AR would have been?

 

[haineshisway]

"A widescreen movie" – what's that? As has been proven repeatedly in this very thread, one can definitively ascertain correct ARs by as little as a single screenshot. Thank you so much for bestowing on us yet more of your expert opinion.

Meanwhile in other news, before we drift off into the realms of conjecture and as per the title of this thread, does anyone have any actual documentary evidence as to Truffaut's preferred ratio for this particular film, and what its enforced theatrical AR would have been?

I don't even know what this means, but your continued attempts be be adversarial with me are getting really old and really obnoxious. THAT is my expert opinion. Someone posted a screenshot with the top of a head cut off and said they were baffled by it - and I posted that it is common framing in widescreen movies (not to mention movies in Academy and scope). Why did you even make this response?

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I don't even know what this means, but your continued attempts be be adversarial with me are getting really old and really obnoxious. THAT is my expert opinion. Someone posted a screenshot with the top of a head cut off and said they were baffled by it - and I posted that it is common framing in widescreen movies (not to mention movies in Academy and scope). Why did you even make this response?

I wasn't baffled by the composition of that particular shot which is in 1.33. I was baffled by the idea that the correct aspect ratio is actually 1.66 and how that shot could still work being matted down to 1.66.

 

[Jack Theakston]

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, Jack. Because heads are NEVER cropped in 1.37 or 2.35 films!

 

[DVDvision]

But I wanted to watch his haircut, why would you cut off his haircut boxy is beautiful. Don't you get that what people wanna see his hair? Who care's about actor's eyes or facial expressions, it's the hair that tells the story!

 

[B-ROLL]

But I wanted to watch his haircut, why would you cut off his haircut boxy is beautiful. Don't you get that what people wanna see his hair? Who care's about actor's eyes or facial expressions, it's the hair that tells the story!

I was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius !

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Where's his nose and chin???

 

[DVDvision]

Something gone wrong with that boxy, I don't see his feet either.

 

[haineshisway]

Shot is obviously correct in 1.66 - point being the hair is cut off in both but one is perfectly composed, as you can see above.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Shot is obviously correct in 1.66 - point being the hair is cut off in both but one is perfectly composed, as you can see above.

I agree. I didn't think it would look right in 1.66, but I was clearly wrong. 1.66 is correct. I'd still love to know the reason why Artificial Eye scanned everything at OAR in the 8-film box with the exception of this one film, but I doubt we'll ever get that answer.

 

[Gary Couzens]

I agree. I didn't think it would look right in 1.66, but I was clearly wrong. 1.66 is correct. I'd still love to know the reason why Artificial Eye scanned everything at OAR in the 8-film box with the exception of this one film, but I doubt we'll ever get that answer.

I believe previous French discs were 1.33:1 as well, and I suspect Artificial Eye simply released what they were given.

(I reviewed all the Artificial Eye Truffaut releases and had, and still have, all of them on previous French DVDs in three box sets - except for this one.)

 

[Brent Reid]

I've two questions, re cult UK sci-fi flick, Devil Girl from Mars (1954). Firstly, what's the correct AR? Every home video release to date has transferred it in 1.33:1, but throughout it appears framed way too loosely. IMDb cites the usual 1.66:1 but well, whatever. Doug said previously that Kine Weekly didn't carry ARs in the earliest years of widescreen, but any insights would be appreciated. Secondly, though it's treated as such by numerous labels, does anyone know whether or not this film is actually in the public domain?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

DEVIL GIRL FROM MARS is widescreen.

It was filmed in January 1954 at Shepperton Studios by Danziger Productions Ltd. The British Lion house ratio in 12/53 was 1.8. I've screened a 35mm print and it crops perfectly with all compositions and camera movement blocked for that ratio.

I'm not sure on its copyright status.

 

[Brent Reid]

Yay Bob! I knew you, Doug or someone would come up with the goods!

I've only ever come across two decent quality DVDs: one is the US Image with the US print, courtesy of Wade Williams. I don't think much more need be said about his copyright claims – *cough* Raymond Rohauer *cough*.
The other is the UK Network, with a UK print. The StudioCanal ident plays just before the start of the film and their logo appears on the rear sleeve. Mind you, it also bears the legend "...a brand-new transfer from original film elements in its as-exhibited cinema aspect ratio." Yeah, right. In addition, Park Circus have a DCP available, again courtesy of StudioCanal, who also offer it via their French "Canal VOD" site. Lastly, and I guess most compellingly, It's listed as copyright StudioCanal on the British Lion site.

So unless anyone can add anything further, the final tally is: OAR 1.75-1.85:1 and © StudioCanal. This means there's only one legit DVD, one inferior but decent bootleg VHS and DVD of the US print, and any number of really crappy bootlegs.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Have you ever wondered about the dawn of stereo music in the home? Did you know that it was developing just as widescreen movies were hitting theaters? My new article will clear up many myths and misconceptions with all new research done in documented primary sources.

Please share! http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/binaural-or-bust

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Now I don't know whether I should buy a reel to reel machine with stacked or staggered heads! Stereophonic or binaural tapes! Too many choices...

 

[Douglas R]

I have the two Kino Lorber Maigret Blu-rays starring Jean Gabin. MAIGRET AND THE ST. FIACRE CASE (1959) is in the ratio 1.66:1 which I'm sure is correct. MAIGRET SETS A TRAP (1958) is 1.33:1 and it's clear that the film was photographed with presentation at 1.66:1 in mind. Apart from plenty of space top and bottom of the frame, the titles are a giveaway, as they scroll within a 1.66:1 area of the 1.33:1 frame. The film was released early 1958. I don't know for sure how quickly the majority of French cinemas converted to widescreen but I think it was not as fast as, for example, the UK, and the film was probably shown in both aspect ratios depending on individual theatres.

There's a book "The Classic French Cinema, 1930 - 1960" by Colin Crisp which provides some information about the conversion of French cinemas to widescreen and states that THE ROBE opened in Paris two months after its New York premiere. At that time, four Paris cinemas, eight provincial cinemas and 23 others were equipped for widescreen. In comparison, 420 cinemas had been converted in England by that date. The book also indicates that after its initial introduction, French-made widescreen films actually declined later in the 1950s, until 1960 when the New Wave was underway.