Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Vic Pardo]

There's no way to know as theaters converted at different times beginning in the summer of 1953.

Thank you, Bob. Now I have another question.

I’ve noticed that every Japanese film I have before 1957 is in the Academy ratio (1.37:1). And this includes some 1957 releases. The first widescreen process in Japan, Tohoscope, was introduced in 1957 in a film called ON WINGS OF LOVE.

How did Japanese theaters show Hollywood films, particularly those in Cinemascope, if their theaters were still showing films made in the Academy ratio? Did their theaters convert to widescreen at some point? And did they then crop their own films that were shot in 1.37:1?

Here are frames from four Japanese films, two from 1956 and one from 1957. The 1956 frames are taken from Criterion discs. The b&w 1957 frame is taken from a disc made from a Japanese source. The color 1957 frame is taken from a disc purchased from Japan.

Harp of Burma:

Early Spring:

Traitors of the Date Clan:

On Wings of Love:

I'm not 100% certain of this, but pretty much every live-action Japanese film I have that's post-1957 is in an anamorphic widescreen process. Most of the animated features, too. If I have any that are 1.85:1, I'd have to look for them.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I don't know. Perhaps someone else has some information?

 

[Joseph Goodman]

Cinemascope was shown in Japan almost from the start, with THE ROBE opening in two Toho-owned theaters in Tokyo and Osaka in December 1953. Cinemascope actually came to Japan before Cinerama, which didn't premiere there until 1955.

 

[RolandL]

Young Doctors 1961 on TCM right now with 1.33 AR, should be 1.85.

 

[theonemacduff]

If you're counting non-Hollywood films, they're still being made. This year's Cold War is Academy black-and-white. As for major studio films - was The Good German released in Academy or 1.85?

Long time since I spun up the disc of Good German, but I seem to recall an extra where Soderberg talks about how interesting it was to shoot in the older ratio.
Oh, just read an above post; but even if it was screened pillarboxed within a 1.85 frame, apart from not being big enough, for the audience, it was still 1.33.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Russian and Japanese filmmakers seemed to prefer 1.37:1 when not shooting in anamorphic or large format until the 80s. Only exceptions I can find are a few films by Nagisa Oshima, except two were shot in VistaVision and were technically French productions.

Even Miyazaki's The Castle of Cagliostro might have been 1.85:1 only because the previous Lupin III film was shot in VistaVision.

 

[Gary Couzens]

While I'm on the BFI, another one they've announced for July is It Happened Here. In this case I suspect 1.37:1 is the correct ratio.

I first saw this at the National Film Theatre in 1993, shortly before the film was released on VHS. As it turned out, this was the first public showing of the complete version, i.e. with the six-minute scene featuring real neo-Nazis expounding their philosophy which the distributors had cut back in 1965, though after the BBFC had passed the film, it seems. The NFT showed the film in 1.37:1 but given that Kevin Brownlow introduced the showing and did a Q&A afterwards, I presume he would have objected if the film had been shown incorrectly. Though how many cinemas could have shown it correctly at the time, I don't know. Its opening London venue was the Pavilion on Piccadilly Circus.

The film did famously begin as an amateur production in 16mm before becoming a professional shoot in 35mm and taking eight years to complete from beginning to end. The majority of the film is 35mm-originated, as I remember.

Brownlow and Andrew Mollo's second and last dramatic feature as directors, Winstanley, is also black and white 1.37:1, mostly 35mm-shot. There can't be many living directors whose entire filmography of dramatic features is in black and white Academy Ratio, but Brownlow would be one of them.

My Digital Fix review is now live.

First off, apologies to Andrew Mollo, who is still with us - the last sentence above would apply to him as well.

This Blu-ray was the first time I saw It Happened Here since that time at the NFT in 1994 (not 1993). just for clarity that was the first public showing of the complete version after its original cinema release. The film did play complete at festivals before then, such as Cannes and London.

Watching the film this time, it seems I misremembered the amount of 16mm-originated footage in it, which may be down to the difference in resolution between a 35mm print in the days before digital intermediates and a 2K scan from the negative (and my memory). The 16mm comprises the first 35 minutes (approximately), the newsreel sequence and the debate scene. The rest is 35mm. The 16mm stuff is undoubtedly framed for 1.37:1 - as an amateur production, there would be no reason for it to be otherwise. However, the 35mm material does look framed wider - maybe 1.75:1. By then, of course, this was a professional production with a view to a cinema release, which indeed it received. I would be surprised if the London Pavilion or any other cinema showed it in 1.37:1. The debate scene wasn't in the original cinema release, and the newsreel is windowboxed. However, in any widescreen ratio, much of the first half hour or so would be noticeably cropped. So on that basis, i do think that 1.37:1 is the right choice. As I mentioned previously, Kevin Brownlow would I'm sure have objected if that 1994 screening had been shown in the wrong ratio.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Toho seems to have discovered Aperture Plates around 1980 when Kurosawa shot Kagemusha with a 1.85 matte in mind (not sure if it was in camera or not as I've never seen any cells online)

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Just in case anyone is wondering.

From our esteemed UK researcher, Douglas R!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

For the shocking truth about the intended aspect ratio of the first three Bond films, start at post #62:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4639552/

 

[John Hodson]

A chap on another forum (who used to work for a home entertainment label) recently described how he was ordered to transfer a whole bunch of titles in 1.66:1 and described it as "the safe choice (the cowards choice)". Which is about right.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

There's also an obsession at a certain high-profile company to release most non-anamorphic widescreen films in 1.66:1.

A friend worked there in the restoration department and personally delivered primary source documentation to the in-house producer for a film that was definitely composed for 1.85:1. All framing and camera tilting confirmed it.

The Blu-ray is 1.66...

 

[Brent Reid]

I know who you mean, Bob, and it's maddening (along with their too-frequently crushed blacks). Sadly though, there are numerous 1.66:1 fetishists overseeing transfers in companies on both sides of the Pond.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You'll have your widescreen Revenge in two weeks!

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/revenge-of-the-creature

 

[Gary Couzens]

I've received a Blu-ray checkdisc of DEATH LINE (US title: RAW MEAT) which is out soon from Network. It's transferred in a ratio of 1.85:1 and what's more the disc has a PDF of the US pressbook, which specifically says that that is the aspect ratio.

Another Network release of a UK horror film of around the same age is ASSAULT. I have a review copy of that too - it's also 1.85:1.

I'm probably opening a can of worms by mentioning this, but I've watched all the Hammer Blu-rays from StudioCanal and Indicator from the last year. All the non-Scope titles are 1.66:1, apart from FANATIC (aka DIE! DIE! MY DARLING!) which is 1.85:1. I can't say with any authority if that is correct or not. I'm also not old enough to have seen any of them in the cinema, but I'm willing to bet most UK cinemas showed them in 1.75:1.

 

[Douglas R]

I've received a Blu-ray checkdisc of DEATH LINE (US title: RAW MEAT) which is out soon from Network. It's transferred in a ratio of 1.85:1 and what's more the disc has a PDF of the US pressbook, which specifically says that that is the aspect ratio.

Another Network release of a UK horror film of around the same age is ASSAULT. I have a review copy of that too - it's also 1.85:1.

I'm probably opening a can of worms by mentioning this, but I've watched all the Hammer Blu-rays from StudioCanal and Indicator from the last year. All the non-Scope titles are 1.66:1, apart from FANATIC (aka DIE! DIE! MY DARLING!) which is 1.85:1. I can't say with any authority if that is correct or not. I'm also not old enough to have seen any of them in the cinema, but I'm willing to bet most UK cinemas showed them in 1.75:1.

It's interesting that the pressbook of DEATH LINE stated the AR. That seems to have been fairly rare.

Annoyingly, the Bray Hammer films never gave the aspect ratio for Kine Weekly. They only said "widescreen", unless it was 'scope. As you say, it's a safe bet that most of them were shown 1.75:1 in the UK, considering relatively few films were intended for 1.66:1. I didn't see many Hammer films in cinemas. The first one I did see was TERROR OF THE TONGS (a double-bill with HOMICIDAL). No idea what the AR was although I'm fairly sure my local cinemas showed films 1.75:1 (ABC chain where I saw TONGS) or 1.85:1 (Granada chain).

 

[Douglas R]

Fron Kine Weekly May 26, 1955.

Terrible art work but what I found interesting was, at top left,

"Available in the following versions:
CinemaScope with Stereophonic sound:
CinemaScope with standard and Perspecta sound:
and for normal projection with standard and Perspecta sound"

I suppose that covered all theater variables!

Universal seem to have forgotten about THE PURPLE MASK. I saw the film when originally released in CinemaScope but with mono sound. Thoroughly enjoyed it but haven't seen it since. There is a UK DVD in 1.33:1 but I've not seen that.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

On the average, we can restore a vintage 3-D feature in three months. SANGAREE was on the operating table for five months and proved to be - by far - our most challenging color restoration to date.

Thanks to the magnificent color restoration by Greg Kintz and Jack Theakston - plus the meticulous dirt and damage clean-up by Thad Komorowski - this Golden Age 3-D classic now looks better than ever before!

SANGAREE was shown in some theaters in cropped 1.66:1 but that was not the intent during principal photography. We always restore our 3-D titles in the aspect ratio intended during production so the 3-D Blu-ray and flat DVD are in the standard Academy ratio.

It's worth noting that SANGAREE was the first widescreen film shown in France.

This beautifully restored 3-D Blu-ray is now available from Kino Lorber. For more information, please visit http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/sangaree

 

[Rob W]

There's also an obsession at a certain high-profile company to release most non-anamorphic widescreen films in 1.66:1.

A friend worked there in the restoration department and personally delivered primary source documentation to the in-house producer for a film that was definitely composed for 1.85:1. All framing and camera tilting confirmed it.

The Blu-ray is 1.66...

What concerns me is that since most of this work is now being done digitally, the Blu-ray and DCP versions now often come from the same master. For example, when I saw the DCP of Funny Face last year, the opening credits were needlessly windowboxed as they are on the Blu-ray.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The 007 DCPs also suffered from that for many years. They’ve been upgrading them with new 4K versions which have fixed that, but basically, if you went to see a classic Bond movie in theaters over the past decade, you were stuck with windowboxed and/or squeezed credits.