Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[Tony Bensley]

I'm with RAH on this. It's best not to obsess over 1.66/1.78/1.85. As long as they are choosing to slightly open up the mattes rather than crop anything, the end user has the ability to matte the image to his liking.

Respect for original intentions and accuracy are what is important. And not all TV screens allow correct ratio adjustment.

Which is why it's important to keep within + or - .20 of the intended aspect ratio to avoid excessive cropping, or capturing of outer imaging not meant to be seen!

CHEERS!

 

[Gary Couzens]

And according to a thread in another forum, the actual research done in this thread and elsewhere is "someone finding old film mags in a garage".

As mentioned in that thread, StudioCanal recently released eight 1970s Hammer films on Blu-ray, all in 1.66:1, but I suspect that's another can of worms that's been opened before. As for the BFI, they have several times released films on disc in 1.37:1 (not even 1.66:1) when they were commercial releases of the 1960s and 1970s. Okay, I'll let SYMPTOMS go as that ratio was producer-authorised, and Academy is correct for BRONCO BULLFROG as per the director, but I'm doubtful that the likes of SOME KIND OF GIRL and PERMISSIVE ever showed in that ratio in British cinemas. The argument the BFI put forward for the latter was that it was shot in 16mm, but there's a difference between a film like that and the likes of DUFFER, which was also a 16mm feature but as far as I know didn't get a commercial release until the BFI put it on disc (if it did, it wasn't certified by the BBFC) and probably did show in arthouses or cooperatives. I've seen it, but don't have a copy to hand, but as I remember 1.33/7:1 is correct for that one.

Other than direct testimony from the director or cinematographer (in most cases no longer alive) trade magazines are the nearest we do have to primary sources for aspect ratios of films of that time. Nestor Almendros, for example, lists the aspect ratios for all the feature films he shot, in his book, but others didn't. It's a while since I read Walter Lassally's book Itinerant Cameraman (which is much more a memoir/autobiography than Almendros's book) and as I remember he mentions ratios in passing only once or twice - according to him, THE ADDING MACHINE (1969) is 1.75:1.

It'll be a while yet before review copies of the Woodfall films will be available, but I'm sure I'll be discussing this issue when I review them.

 

[moviepas]

Re Marty. The DVD issued is missing a scene that is on an apartment floor. It was in the VHS issued in Australia(PAL) and I duly made a DVD, as I could then safely, and buried in my archives. The VHS might be still here also. Hopefully, Eureka/Master know about this and will check what they have in this respect.

 

[John Hodson]

I'm with RAH on this. It's best not to obsess over 1.66/1.78/1.85. As long as they are choosing to slightly open up the mattes rather than crop anything, the end user has the ability to matte the image to his liking.

Looking on other forums, it's an attitude that seems to be gaining traction. So we've gone from a grudging acceptance that certain films were shot wide, to who cares what the AR is as long as it's widescreen? I suppose it's some form of progress; but is 'close, but no cigar' what we're aiming for in home cinema...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Looking on other forums, it's an attitude that seems to be gaining traction. So we've gone from a grudging acceptance that certain films were shot wide, to who cares what the AR is as long as it's widescreen? I suppose it's some form of progress; but is 'close, but no cigar' what we're aiming for in home cinema...

John,

I hear you, but, with many of us having fought this aspect ratio issue for 20-30 years on home video products, I think many of us have become aware that we have to pick our battles more wisely now. Simply put, some of us are running out of time. We should respect the original intent of the filmmakers in regard to their films, but, there is only so much we can do with this fracture market of boutique companies releasing home video titles while the studios decrease their output of the same. Furthermore, it isn't that I don't care, however, with streaming and downloads the war for proper film aspect ratios has become more complicated to fight as well as isolated so I need to choose my aspect ratio battles more carefully now. From my perspective, I have a larger issue with releasing a 2.35 film onto a disc with a 1.85 ratio than I do for a 1.66/1.78/1.85 film being release in the wrong widescreen aspect ratio from 1.85 to 1.66. Yes, it's compromising my principles and accepting defeat, but, I'm at an age now in which I realized that life is too short to do otherwise.

 

[DVDvision]

There is one problem about being cool with variable widescreen formats: as the Blood and Black Lace debate has shown, many of those 1.66 approximations are transfered by losing up the sides that are inclusive of the proper aspect ratio.

Also, many of those as misframed. I take the first 3 James Bond films as example, From Russia With Love especially is unwatchable to me, there's too much dead space above the heads and none of those shots make sense that way. Goldfinger has some variable zooming and reframing depending on the shots. Dr No has too much bottom and right side information, the films do not look consistent.

Any company releasing stuff needs to nail it right by using competent supervisor and techs. It's just the minimum wage work expected when preserving those films for the next 20 years or so until a new scan comes along.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There is one problem about being cool with variable widescreen formats: as the Blood and Black Lace debate has shown, many of those 1.66 approximations are transfered by losing up the sides that are inclusive of the proper aspect ratio.

Also, many of those as misframed. I take the first 3 James Bond films as example, From Russia With Love especially is unwatchable to me, there's too much dead space above the heads and none of those shots make sense that way. Goldfinger has some variable zooming and reframing depending on the shots. Dr No has too much bottom and right side information, the films do not look consistent.

Any company releasing stuff needs to nail it right by using competent supervisor and techs. It's just the minimum wage work expected when preserving those films for the next 20 years or so until a new scan comes along.

Unfortunately, the framing issue isn't enough of a issue for many people including some here.

 

[topdollar]

Looking on other forums, it's an attitude that seems to be gaining traction. So we've gone from a grudging acceptance that certain films were shot wide, to who cares what the AR is as long as it's widescreen? I suppose it's some form of progress; but is 'close, but no cigar' what we're aiming for in home cinema...

I think we all want ratios to be correct but it does seem a less stressful option to accept a 1.85 movie as 1.66 rather than worry needlessly that it's wrong. Surely that it's not 1.37 is the most important thing?
I'm certain that the Hammer films Studio Canal release are not all 1.66 but other than refuse to buy them I don't see any alternative. They're not 1.37 so I try to be positive

 

[Douglas R]

I think we all want ratios to be correct but it does seem a less stressful option to accept a 1.85 movie as 1.66 rather than worry needlessly that it's wrong.

Raising these issues doesn’t mean that one is “stressed” or “worried” about them. I for one, just like things to be done correctly - which covers many other aspects of life.

 

[topdollar]

Raising these issues doesn’t mean that one is “stressed” or “worried” about them. I for one, just like things to be done correctly - which covers many other aspects of life.

Yes, but threads like this all over the internet just seem to go on about how one studio has done this wrong,another has done such and such wrong and people refusing to buy movies when they are in the wrong ratio. Now back in the day when Cinemascope was chopped in half I could understand, and I also understand that seeing a release in 1.37 that should be wide is also annoying but generally since the bad old days I think the widescreen war has been pretty much won thanks to people like Bob and yourself so going that little bit further of complaining about 1.66/1.75/1,85 might be seen as a step too far. Seeing the history of British films it's clear that during the transitional period there are question marks over intended ratios for any number of films and this thread seems to demonstrate that some ratios are determined as intended simply because there is a lot of headroom.
I join you in wanting things done correctly,where possible but the I have a saying - life's too short for some things.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Yes, it's compromising my principles and accepting defeat, but, I'm at an age now in which I realized that life is too short to do otherwise.

I join you in wanting things done correctly,where possible but the I have a saying - life's too short for some things.

It's funny how reaching a certain age brings us to these conclusions. I'm in full agreement.

It's unfortunate, but there are so many more important things to care about...

 

[John Hodson]

Raising these issues doesn’t mean that one is “stressed” or “worried” about them. I for one, just like things to be done correctly - which covers many other aspects of life.

Indeed. The characterisation of the leading lights in this research is worrying, though I refer more in that regard to events elsewhere.

I, for one, am eternally grateful to everyone involved, particularly Bob, and hope that they continue to research, encourage, and cajole, so that film fans of the future will enjoy the movies as the film makers of the past - many, many of them long gone - intended. It's a truly admirable ambition; long may they strive for it.

It does matter.

 

[topdollar]

Indeed. The characterisation of the leading lights in this research is worrying, though I refer more in that regard to events elsewhere.

I, for one, am eternally grateful to everyone involved, particularly Bob, and hope that they continue to research, encourage, and cajole, so that film fans of the future will enjoy the movies as the film makers of the past - many, many of them long gone - intended. It's a truly admirable ambition; long may they strive for it.

It does matter.

I don't think anyone would say it doesn't matter John, and I join you in thanking those responsible for waking up some of the studios in ensuring that wide films are released wide. And I think overall they get it right.
The remaining problem of knowing whether open matte or 1.66 films should be one of the 3 ratios is also important but bearing in mind there are conflicting opinions is enough for me to not be too concerned.
If Bob says a film should be 1.85 and it gets released at 1.66 we have posts all over the net complaining as if Bob has the definitive answer, which does not always seem to be the case. Even he is not 100% sure with some movies.
Having followed your posts on various forums over the years John, I know that like me, you're not a spring chicken either and while we strive for the right choices does it make sense to ignore releases just because the ratio is slightly wrong? (and 1.66 instead of 1.85 isn't a huge difference).
If we don't buy the new release will we ever get the chance to buy that particular film again?

 

[John Hodson]

Who on Earth is advocating boycotting such releases? I refuse to support any release in a ratio for which it was never intended to be seen, and I will continue to support any and all efforts for home video masters to be released in the primary aspect ratio in which they were shot. Including shouting it all over the 'net.

But boycotting a release that's in 1.66:1 instead of 1.85:1? It's irritating, because it's getting easier thanks to Bob and co., to get it right, but not usually.

And I know who you are too, so you'll forgive me for not responding to you again. Life really is too short.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm very pleased to report that we provided primary source documentation to ClassicFlix and FIVE STEPS TO DANGER (1.85:1) and DOWN THREE DARK STREETS (1.75:1) will be released on Blu-ray in the correct aspect ratio.

You can finally see them as the director intended for the first time since their original theatrical release.

Be sure to pre-order these new releases; they look fantastic!

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I do hope The Dambusters will get released in its widescreen glory.
I have so far owned this in VHS, DVD and in two separate Blu ray editions. I will certainly add a third if it's at last seen as intended. Otherwise, I'll stamp my foot and say shucks and tarnation.

 

[Matt Hough]

I'm very pleased to report that we provided primary source documentation to ClassicFlix and FIVE STEPS TO DANGER (1.85:1) and DOWN THREE DARK STREETS (1.75:1) will be released on Blu-ray in the correct aspect ratio.

You can finally see them as the director intended for the first time since their original theatrical release.

Be sure to pre-order these new releases; they look fantastic!

Very much looking forward to these releases. Thanks for the info!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

THE MAZE was brought back to stereoscopic life and these important individuals made it happen:

Jerry Lewis introduced me to Martin Scorsese on October 6, 2015. That meeting at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, New York cut through miles of red tape and started the ball rolling immediately on this project.

Martin Scorsese and Margaret Bodde at the Film Foundation insured that we had 4K scans of the left/right 35mm camera negatives and provided much-needed funding in order to make that happen.

Laura Thornburg and Andrea Kalas at the Paramount Archive provided access to the camera original 35mm elements. The 4K scans were done at PRO-TEK in Burbank, CA.

Richard Lorber and Frank Tarzi at Kino Lorber Studio Classics secured the license.

Greg Kintz did the painstaking 3-D image restoration plus scene-to-scene grading of the raw scans.

Thad Komorowski did the meticulous dirt and damage clean-up.

Eckhard Büttner recreated the lost stereophonic sound from mono optical elements.

Jack Theakston helped with research and QC on the work-in-progress.

The entire 3-D Film Archive team is VERY proud of this restoration and hope that you enjoy it!

For more information, please read this terrific article by Ted Okuda: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-maze

 

[Douglas R]

I posted this in the Kino Lorber thread in reply to a question about LISBON which was filmed by Republic in Naturama.

Kine Weekly of Nov 5, 1955, included a speech given at a conference for Republic Pictures staff by Mr Armour in which he talked about their new widescreen process Naturama, which makes interesting reading from today's perspective. I particular like the bit about eliminating grain. Quite right. We don't want any of that pesky grain!

It was a long speech but this is the piece about Naturama.