Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

No, the colorization was done from the non-anamorphic element. That's why it has more visual information vertically than the extraction.

 

[Thomas T]

According to Bob, there is supposed to be a Western next summer.

I'm assuming the 3D western is Sirk's Taza Son Of Cochise (1954) with Rock Hudson via Kino's deal with Universal. Kino said they had several Sirk films out of the deal but so far have only announced The Tarnished Angels.

 

[ABritch]

Release prints of JAILHOUSE ROCK are anamorphic 2.35:1; LOVING YOU and KING CREOLE are protected for 1.66:1 but composed (and intended theatrically) for 1.85:1.

Here's what Jack Theakston wrote about JAILHOUSE ROCK on July 2, 2012:

With JAILHOUSE ROCK, my guess is that Avon (the independent producers) planned it to be flat/1.85, but when MGM picked the film up, they wanted 'scope, hence the extraction, which was done at Panavision. The CinemaScope credit on the opening titles was contractual and totally bogus.
Note the extraction area AND hard matte in this comparison:

MGM was not the only one doing this. Since leasing CinemaScope and Panavision lenses was an expensive (or artistically dissatisfying to some DPs) option, many of the cheaper B&W 2.35 shows were shot Super-35. So this would also include the AIP "Superama" titles, HammerScope, and others. I always thought that THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN OF THE HIMALAYAS (touted as "HammerScope") was shot with Francoscope lenses, but examination of the leader on an original print proved it to be an extraction from a flat negative.

Thank You Bob, fascinating info.

Am I understanding correctly then that Jailhouse Rock was photographed with flat 35mm lenses (1.37:1) with the intended ratio to be matted to 1.85:1. Then this horizontal negative was given to Panavision to make the release prints using an Anamorphic lens to compose a 2.35:1 image from the 1.37:1 negative?

This would make this statement from the widescreen museum correct and that JR was NOT the first 35mm film shot with Panavision lenses (as claimed in "The Hollywood Story" by Joel W. Finler) - correct?

But even though Jailhouse Rock carried both CinemaScope and Panavision credits, it was actually not photographed in either widescreen system. It would have been more correct to say it was a Superscope production since the image didn't become anamorphic until the prints were made through Panavision's MicroPanatar printer lens. Seen below are credits from the film. "Process Lenses by Panavision" indicates that anamorphic printer lenses were used to make CinemaScope compatible show prints. For anamorphic photography the credit would say "Photographic Lenses by Panavision"

Bob, regarding your post, "LOVING YOU and KING CREOLE are protected for 1.66:1 but composed (and intended theatrically) for 1.85:1."

Loving You was shot with a VistaVision camera and King Creole with a standard flat 35mm lens - correct? Doesn't that mean that VistaVision (where the film goes through vertically, not horizontally) used a larger format film stock that had a 35mm frame of 2.00:1 than the standard 1.37:1 35mm? Isn't this why the composed 1.85:1 image of Loving You is sharper, more detailed than King Creole's 1.85:1 image?

Finally, King Creole on DVD doesn't seem as if the image is correctly framed at 1.85:1, it seems to cut a little too much of the top, is it framed closer to 2.00:1?

Thank you for your help.

 

[ABritch]

No, the colorization was done from the non-anamorphic element. That's why it has more visual information vertically than the extraction.

I have this colorized version on VHS, it has the entire image shot by the camera negative before any processing by Panavision?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I can't give you a precise answer on what was exposed through the camera aperture onto the original 35mm negative - but I can confirm the intended aspect ratio on projection.

 

[ABritch]

Thank You Bob, fascinating info.

Am I understanding correctly then that Jailhouse Rock was photographed with flat 35mm lenses (1.37:1) with the intended ratio to be matted to 1.85:1. Then this horizontal negative was given to Panavision to make the release prints using an Anamorphic lens to compose a 2.35:1 image from the 1.37:1 negative?

This would make this statement from the widescreen museum correct and that JR was NOT the first 35mm film shot with Panavision lenses (as claimed in "The Hollywood Story" by Joel W. Finler) - correct?

But even though Jailhouse Rock carried both CinemaScope and Panavision credits, it was actually not photographed in either widescreen system. It would have been more correct to say it was a Superscope production since the image didn't become anamorphic until the prints were made through Panavision's MicroPanatar printer lens. Seen below are credits from the film. "Process Lenses by Panavision" indicates that anamorphic printer lenses were used to make CinemaScope compatible show prints. For anamorphic photography the credit would say "Photographic Lenses by Panavision"

Bob, regarding your post, "LOVING YOU and KING CREOLE are protected for 1.66:1 but composed (and intended theatrically) for 1.85:1."

Loving You was shot with a VistaVision camera and King Creole with a standard flat 35mm lens - correct? Doesn't that mean that VistaVision (where the film goes through vertically, not horizontally) used a larger format film stock that had a 35mm frame of 2.00:1 than the standard 1.37:1 35mm? Isn't this why the composed 1.85:1 image of Loving You is sharper, more detailed than King Creole's 1.85:1 image?

Finally, King Creole on DVD doesn't seem as if the image is correctly framed at 1.85:1, it seems to cut a little too much of the top, is it framed closer to 2.00:1?

Thank you for your help.

Thank you again for posting the VistaVision example, Bob.

Excluding the question already answered (about the difference between the VistaVision camera negative vs standard 35mm) would you be able to provide answers to the two questions regarding Jailhouse Rock in my previous post above?

And

Do you have any info regarding the dvd framing of King Creole or is it all in my mind and it’s framed properly?

You mentioned “protected at 1.66:1” for Loving You and King Creole - what does this mean?

Finally, it has been suggested to me that Jailhouse Rock uses the “SuperScope” technique. Do you know what this is?

Finally, the extraction example you provided for Jailhouse Rock, was this a common to produce a release print?

It almost seems as if we are getting considerably less than the director might have intended than if it was matted to 1.85:1 or even left at 1.37:1, rather than the extracted piece blown up to 2.35:1?

The information you can provide is very helpful for an amateur like me to wrap my head around this.

 

[Jimbo64]

Thank You Bob, fascinating info.

Am I understanding correctly then that Jailhouse Rock was photographed with flat 35mm lenses (1.37:1) with the intended ratio to be matted to 1.85:1. Then this horizontal negative was given to Panavision to make the release prints using an Anamorphic lens to compose a 2.35:1 image from the 1.37:1 negative?

This would make this statement from the widescreen museum correct and that JR was NOT the first 35mm film shot with Panavision lenses (as claimed in "The Hollywood Story" by Joel W. Finler) - correct?

But even though Jailhouse Rock carried both CinemaScope and Panavision credits, it was actually not photographed in either widescreen system. It would have been more correct to say it was a Superscope production since the image didn't become anamorphic until the prints were made through Panavision's MicroPanatar printer lens. Seen below are credits from the film. "Process Lenses by Panavision" indicates that anamorphic printer lenses were used to make CinemaScope compatible show prints. For anamorphic photography the credit would say "Photographic Lenses by Panavision"

Bob, regarding your post, "LOVING YOU and KING CREOLE are protected for 1.66:1 but composed (and intended theatrically) for 1.85:1."

Loving You was shot with a VistaVision camera and King Creole with a standard flat 35mm lens - correct? Doesn't that mean that VistaVision (where the film goes through vertically, not horizontally) used a larger format film stock that had a 35mm frame of 2.00:1 than the standard 1.37:1 35mm? Isn't this why the composed 1.85:1 image of Loving You is sharper, more detailed than King Creole's 1.85:1 image?

Finally, King Creole on DVD doesn't seem as if the image is correctly framed at 1.85:1, it seems to cut a little too much of the top, is it framed closer to 2.00:1?

Thank you for your help.

Since when did Jailhouse Rock have a horizontal negative?

 

[ABritch]

Since when did Jailhouse Rock have a horizontal negative?

Since when did Jailhouse Rock have a horizontal negative?

Thanks for pointing out my error. Just remove the word “horizontal “ from that statement/question please.

 

[RolandL]

Thank you again for posting the VistaVision example, Bob.

Excluding the question already answered (about the difference between the VistaVision camera negative vs standard 35mm) would you be able to provide answers to the two questions regarding Jailhouse Rock in my previous post above?

And

Do you have any info regarding the dvd framing of King Creole or is it all in my mind and it’s framed properly?

You mentioned “protected at 1.66:1” for Loving You and King Creole - what does this mean?

Finally, it has been suggested to me that Jailhouse Rock uses the “SuperScope” technique. Do you know what this is?

Finally, the extraction example you provided for Jailhouse Rock, was this a common to produce a release print?

It almost seems as if we are getting considerably less than the director might have intended than if it was matted to 1.85:1 or even left at 1.37:1, rather than the extracted piece blown up to 2.35:1?

The information you can provide is very helpful for an amateur like me to wrap my head around this.

For detailed info on various widescreen processes, I would click on the links to this page on the WidescreenMuseum website.

 

[Jack Theakston]

To recap:

JAILHOUSE ROCK was shot Flat, exposing a 1.37 area and composed to be cropped to 1.85. This also applies to KING CREOLE.

The VistaVision format is a double width frame that exposes at about 1.50-1, but again, is intended to be reduced down to a 4-perforation, 35mm image and cropped to 1.85-1.

I haven’t seen any of the transfers mentioned here, but tight framing can also be a vertical framing issue, the fault of the technician mastering the film.

“SuperScope” “Super 35” and “extracted ‘scope” are all the same idea, and what MGM did with JAILHOUSE ROCK. Panavision judiciously cropped the film for a 2.35-1 negative. Many lower-budget B&W ‘scope films were shot this way as a cost-saving technique, usually so that the studio could double two ‘scope films together on a booking.

The frames that Bob posted I made a composite from a flat trailer to a ‘scope one. As is still common, flat and ‘scope versions of trailers are made to fit the format of the show they’re run at. For the flat trailer, they used the full-aperture neg.

 

[CarlosMeat]

So Jailhouse Rock was originally filmed in color ?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

So Jailhouse Rock was originally filmed in color ?

No.

 

[B-ROLL]

So Jailhouse Rock was originally filmed in color ?

Two: Black and White

 

[nara]

So Jailhouse Rock was originally filmed in color ?

Three: What?

 

[CarlosMeat]

Wow ! So that video was colorized ? Thanks all. If any one else wants to post that I was wrong there's still time.

 

[Jimbo64]

I assumed you were joking

 

[Bob Furmanek]

JIVARO was released flat in 1954 and our new restoration is coming to 3-D Blu-ray from Kino Lorber on March 26.

It has not been seen in widescreen since the original theatrical release 65 years ago!

Here is a new article by Hillary Hess: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/jivaro

 

[ABritch]

To recap:

JAILHOUSE ROCK was shot Flat, exposing a 1.37 area and composed to be cropped to 1.85. This also applies to KING CREOLE.

The VistaVision format is a double width frame that exposes at about 1.50-1, but again, is intended to be reduced down to a 4-perforation, 35mm image and cropped to 1.85-1.

I haven’t seen any of the transfers mentioned here, but tight framing can also be a vertical framing issue, the fault of the technician mastering the film.

“SuperScope” “Super 35” and “extracted ‘scope” are all the same idea, and what MGM did with JAILHOUSE ROCK. Panavision judiciously cropped the film for a 2.35-1 negative. Many lower-budget B&W ‘scope films were shot this way as a cost-saving technique, usually so that the studio could double two ‘scope films together on a booking.

The frames that Bob posted I made a composite from a flat trailer to a ‘scope one. As is still common, flat and ‘scope versions of trailers are made to fit the format of the show they’re run at. For the flat trailer, they used the full-aperture neg.

Thank you very much Jack and Bob - you have both been very helpful.

These Elvis films were shot the same way as King Creole i believe, flat 1.37:1 composed to 1.85:1, but a couple composed at 1.66:1, is this list correct?

Non-Anamorphic, Spherical
GI Blues 1.85
Kid Galahad 1.85
Girls Girls Girls 1.85
Fun in Acapulco 1.66 or 1.78
Harum Scarum 1.85
Frankie And Johnny 1.66 or 1.78
Paradise, Hawaiian Style 1.85
Easy Come, Easy Go 1.85
Change of Habit 1.85

Elvis On Tour (1972) seems to use multiple formats. I've read that it was shot on 16mm. but it seems to have sequences at 1.85 and when three images are showed side to side it is 2.35.

my guess is the concert sequences were shot with both 16mm and 35mm at 1.37 composed for 1.37 to be used when three images appear on screen. Some concert and off stage footage was shot with 35mm 1.37 composed for 1.85. The film was edited as follows:
when one image is shown it's composed at 1.85
when two images shown it's composed at 1.85
when three images shown its composed to 2.35

Have I got any of this correct?

thank you.

 

[haineshisway]

Thank you very much Jack and Bob - you have both been very helpful.

These Elvis films were shot the same way as King Creole i believe, flat 1.37:1 composed to 1.85:1, but a couple composed at 1.66:1, is this list correct?

Non-Anamorphic, Spherical
GI Blues 1.85
Kid Galahad 1.85
Girls Girls Girls 1.85
Fun in Acapulco 1.66 or 1.78
Harum Scarum 1.85
Frankie And Johnny 1.66 or 1.78
Paradise, Hawaiian Style 1.85
Easy Come, Easy Go 1.85
Change of Habit 1.85

Elvis On Tour (1972) seems to use multiple formats. I've read that it was shot on 16mm. but it seems to have sequences at 1.85 and when three images are showed side to side it is 2.35.

my guess is the concert sequences were shot with both 16mm and 35mm at 1.37 composed for 1.37 to be used when three images appear on screen. Some concert and off stage footage was shot with 35mm 1.37 composed for 1.85. The film was edited as follows:
when one image is shown it's composed at 1.85
when two images shown it's composed at 1.85
when three images shown its composed to 2.35

Have I got any of this correct?

thank you.

Every film on your main list above was shown in 1.85, which was and is the standard film ratio. None of them were shown in the US at ANY other ratio EVER. When Bob or Jack says something was "protected" for 1.66 they are saying that the cameraman protected up to that ratio so that no mics or anything were in the frame. But they were never shown any other way than 1.85 - that's how they were composed, that's how they were projected.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Bruce is correct; all non-anamorphic Elvis films are 1.85:1.