Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Mark-P]

Because they did not have the ability to play Academy ratio in the 1970s - they did not have the aperture plate nor the correct masking.

And I believe projecting Academy also required a separate lens-throw as just switching aperture plates would project image above and below the screen.

 

[Vern Dias]

Aperture plates were cheap and were available in any aspect ratio, for example this is a 1.66:1 plate for a Simplex XL projector head.

...unless...
it was one of the rare projectors that had a lens turret and an integrated 1.85 / 2.40 aperture plate. Even if that was the case, there was an easy work around for that, simply using the 2.40 setting and a little bit of cardboard on the port to block the excess height. Side masking is certainly not required, as shown by the many 1.33:1 pillarboxed blu ray discs out there.

The only other thing that would be required that you didn't mention would be a different focal length lens. Even that wouldn't need to be an expensive item. Every theater supply chain I have ever dealt with has (or had) a ton of used lenses sitting in a cabinet somewhere that they would likely sell (or rent) for a very reasonable price.

 

[avroman]

For theaters that were around before the Widescreen Revolution, they almost certainly had Lenses that were used for academy ratio presentation. They were usually kept, along with Aperture Plates stored somewhere for use when screening old revivals. Why wouldn't they?

 

[haineshisway]

Aperture plates were cheap and were available in any aspect ratio, for example this is a 1.66:1 plate for a Simplex XL projector head. View attachment 88194 ...unless...
it was one of the rare projectors that had a lens turret and an integrated 1.85 / 2.40 aperture plate. Even if that was the case, there was an easy work around for that, simply using the 2.40 setting and a little bit of cardboard on the port to block the excess height. Side masking is certainly not required, as shown by the many 1.33:1 pillarboxed blu ray discs out there.

The only other thing that would be required that you didn't mention would be a different focal length lens. Even that wouldn't need to be an expensive item. Every theater supply chain I have ever dealt with has (or had) a ton of used lenses sitting in a cabinet somewhere that they would likely sell (or rent) for a very reasonable price.

I'm telling you about the Fine Arts. Period. The End. They couldn't do it. You may continue to argue about it, but I was there and spoke to them about it. If it was sooooo easy, why is it that theaters didn't show open matte all the time - I mean there are people who swear that 1.85 films should be open matte. There were no major houses in LA that could show Academy. Why do you think Coppola's One from the Heart couldn't be shown in his preferred Academy at the Chinese and a special print had to be made? I don't think there's any point in carrying this on, do you?

 

[Vern Dias]

Nope, since the only issue that I had with your initial statement was the word "couldn't".

 

[DVDvision]

Not sure about this, but recently, a new Blu-ray edition of Melville classic Bob Le Flambeur has been released in France by StudioCanal. UPC is 5053083124823.
It appears according to online sources, that this new edition present the film in a 1.85:1 ratio.

I have not been able to track down the back of the Blu-ray sleeve online, but other online sellers also list it at 1.85:1. I think I will go shopping because I've been for years under the impression that the film wasn't 1.37:1 originally, as we discussed here years ago.

The Amazon listing also shows it as 1.85:1. It seems this release as gone under the radar as probably people assume this is just a repackaging of the old 1.33:1 restoration.

EDIT: the back of the sleeve says it's 1.37:1. So much for a new scan.

 

[ahollis]

Since it was released in 1957 in France, that might be the correct ratio. European countries took a little while to get to 1.85:1. But I could be completely wrong.

 

[DVDvision]

We talked about this one a few years back. The end credits scrolls is within a 1.66:1 area which means it appears and disappear out of thin air instead of the black borders that are obviously missing. So I suspect it's probably 1.66:1.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

And I believe projecting Academy also required a separate lens-throw as just switching aperture plates would project image above and below the screen.

Aperture plates were cheap and were available in any aspect ratio, for example this is a 1.66:1 plate for a Simplex XL projector head. View attachment 88194 ...unless...
it was one of the rare projectors that had a lens turret and an integrated 1.85 / 2.40 aperture plate. Even if that was the case, there was an easy work around for that, simply using the 2.40 setting and a little bit of cardboard on the port to block the excess height. Side masking is certainly not required, as shown by the many 1.33:1 pillarboxed blu ray discs out there.

The only other thing that would be required that you didn't mention would be a different focal length lens. Even that wouldn't need to be an expensive item. Every theater supply chain I have ever dealt with has (or had) a ton of used lenses sitting in a cabinet somewhere that they would likely sell (or rent) for a very reasonable price.

I'm telling you about the Fine Arts. Period. The End. They couldn't do it. You may continue to argue about it, but I was there and spoke to them about it. If it was sooooo easy, why is it that theaters didn't show open matte all the time - I mean there are people who swear that 1.85 films should be open matte. There were no major houses in LA that could show Academy. Why do you think Coppola's One from the Heart couldn't be shown in his preferred Academy at the Chinese and a special print had to be made? I don't think there's any point in carrying this on, do you?

A lot of valid points here. When I was working projection at a 14 screen multiplex during law school and projecting film [2003-05], automation was such that we could only project in one of the preset ratios [approx. 1.85:1 or 2.35:1]. While we had some 1.66:1 aperture plates, these would project into the black area above or below the screen. We did have a couple of films that we projected in 1.37:1, but they required special prints that were matted within a 1.85:1 frame, which of course looked like shite. In the case of Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, it didn't make much of a difference, because it was shot on DV and thus would've maxed out at 480 x 720 resolution.

 

[Doff Hat]

Seems exactly the same as the Studio Canal UK release. This was filmed at Shepperton for British Lion. I don't have specifics for 1956 but in 1957 British Lion/Shepperton films were shot for an intended ratio of 1.75:1. Studio Canal are frequently unreliable when it comes to original aspect ratios.

I've been meaning to ask what this AR was for The Green Man, since I got the SC disc last year. The copyright on the back for 1957 says Grenadier Films Ltd. Would the ratio have been dictated by the distributors British Lion or the film studio Shepperton?

British Lion are listed at that Jan 1955 meeting by the BFPA, before they recommend 1.75:1 as an optimum, as 1.8:1 and 1.75:1.

Annoyingly SC put stills on the back of the slip case at a 1.78:1 ratio. What a tease! (The stills on the back of the inner sleeve are about 2.23:1.)

I still haven't watched the disc, but figured it was likely 1.75:1 based on the documentation here. I planned to try it out by zooming until the black pillars are just removed for a central 1.78:1 ratio, and see what happens. Unless I have to common-top it with the 1.66:1 datum line?

 

[Douglas R]

I've been meaning to ask what this AR was for The Green Man, since I got the SC disc last year. The copyright on the back for 1957 says Grenadier Films Ltd. Would the ratio have been dictated by the distributors British Lion or the film studio Shepperton?

British Lion are listed at that Jan 1955 meeting by the BFPA, before they recommend 1.75:1 as an optimum, as 1.8:1 and 1.75:1.

Annoyingly SC put stills on the back of the slip case at a 1.78:1 ratio. What a tease! (The stills on the back of the inner sleeve are about 2.23:1.)

I still haven't watched the disc, but figured it was likely 1.75:1 based on the documentation here. I planned to try it out by zooming until the black pillars are just removed for a central 1.78:1 ratio, and see what happens. Unless I have to common-top it with the 1.66:1 datum line?

Maybe Studio Canal's enthusiasm for 1.66:1 stems from them being a French company and we know that the French carried on showing films in 1.66:1 much longer than other countries! . On that note I vividly remember being at the Paris premiere of Losey's THE GO BETWEEN in 1971 and noting that the screen width was not as wide as those I was used to seeing in London. It was almost certainly 1.66:1 and yet SC have released the film on Blu-ray at 1.85:1.

 

[Doff Hat]

Yes Doug, I've seen many of your posts complaining about Network releasing things 1.66:1. I guess a lot of those were given to them by SC. As RolandL mentioned earlier though, SC released The Green Man 1.37:1 Academy. (I only mentioned 1.66:1 in regard to using its top of picture line for the 1.75:1 top of picture line.)

Was your viewing in Paris of THE GO BETWEEN subtitled or dubbed in French? Is there any credence to the idea that subtitles were considered to look better on 1.66:1, or is that another idea or myth that developed much later. Could that be another possible reason SC like releasing 1.66:1? So they can use the transfer for the French market subtitled? (Although, I thought continental Europe had a well regarded tradition of dubbing.)

 

[Douglas R]

Yes Doug, I've seen many of your posts complaining about Network releasing things 1.66:1. I guess a lot of those were given to them by SC. As RolandL mentioned earlier though, SC released The Green Man 1.37:1 Academy. (I only mentioned 1.66:1 in regard to using its top of picture line for the 1.75:1 top of picture line.)

Was your viewing in Paris of THE GO BETWEEN subtitled or dubbed in French? Is there any credence to the idea that subtitles were considered to look better on 1.66:1, or is that another idea or myth that developed much later. Could that be another possible reason SC like releasing 1.66:1? So they can use the transfer for the French market subtitled? (Although, I thought continental Europe had a well regarded tradition of dubbing.)

The Paris showing of THE GO BETWEEN was in the original language i.e. English with French sub titles.

 

[Gary Couzens]

Oh dear, I'm going to be arguing with the BFI again. I'm currently watching the films on their Children's Film Foundation Volume 3 set (out on DVD on 23 August) and all nine films, dating from 1953 to 1985 are presented in 1.33:1. The earliest one, The Clue of the Missing Ape is from 1953 (passed by the BBFC in January 1954) does look like it's intended for Academy Ratio, but the other two I've watched so far, from 1954 and 1955 both look like a wider ratio is intended. There are headroom over people's heads in anything that's not a tight facial closeup, and camera tilts to keep people in frame etc. The short film Watch Out! (BBFC-certified in July 1953) looks framed for widescreen as well. I wonder if there's any documentation as to the aspect ratios for CFF films (made by various different companies for the CFF) anywhere.

While I'm here, is there a source for the aspect ratio of Genevieve (BBFC-passed in March 1953, released in the UK in May the same year, in the USA February 1954)? I caught part of it on Talking Pictures TV recently and that had the headroom and camera tilts as well. Given the time it was made (shot between October 1952 and February 1953) I'd be surprised if it wasn't Academy, but does anyone know for sure?

Finally, I've heard people on forums claim that The Pawnbroker (1964) is Academy. Of course it isn't, and you'll be glad to hear that the BFI's Blu-ray (out on 16 August) is 1.85:1.

 

[Douglas R]

Oh dear, I'm going to be arguing with the BFI again. I'm currently watching the films on their Children's Film Foundation Volume 3 set (out on DVD on 23 August) and all nine films, dating from 1953 to 1985 are presented in 1.33:1. The earliest one, The Clue of the Missing Ape is from 1953 (passed by the BBFC in January 1954) does look like it's intended for Academy Ratio, but the other two I've watched so far, from 1954 and 1955 both look like a wider ratio is intended. There are headroom over people's heads in anything that's not a tight facial closeup, and camera tilts to keep people in frame etc. The short film Watch Out! (BBFC-certified in July 1953) looks framed for widescreen as well. I wonder if there's any documentation as to the aspect ratios for CFF films (made by various different companies for the CFF) anywhere.

While I'm here, is there a source for the aspect ratio of Genevieve (BBFC-passed in March 1953, released in the UK in May the same year, in the USA February 1954)? I caught part of it on Talking Pictures TV recently and that had the headroom and camera tilts as well. Given the time it was made (shot between October 1952 and February 1953) I'd be surprised if it wasn't Academy, but does anyone know for sure?

Finally, I've heard people on forums claim that The Pawnbroker (1964) is Academy. Of course it isn't, and you'll be glad to hear that the BFI's Blu-ray (out on 16 August) is 1.85:1.

Kine Weekly didn't list many CFF films in production. The only three which I've identified (Kine didn't list them as CFF productions) are "Soapbox Derby", The Adventures of Hal 5" and "Black Ice" all made between October 1956 and end September 1957. "Soapbox Derby" was made at Bushey Studios, for distibution by Rayant. The other two were made at Halliford Studios. "Hal 2" was distributed by British Lion and "Black Ice" by Archway. All three are listed as Standard i.e. Academy Ratio. That's perhaps not too surprising because the films would not have been shown in first run cinemas but in suburbs where some cinemas would not have been converted to widescreen, while those that did would have shown them cropped.

I've nothing on "Genevieve" but I think it must have always been Academy.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

There must have been some recent discussions as I've gotten a number of inquiries on this title.

Paramount went 100% widescreen with new productions in March 1953. THE NAKED JUNGLE began filming on June 29, 1953 and is composed for 1.66:1.

Here's more information:

First Year of Widescreen Production - 3dfilmarchive

 

[RolandL]

Killers Kiss from 1955 is being released 1.37 by Kino Lorber. Shouldn't it be 1.66 or 1.85?

Kino-Lorber Insider Announcement Thread (Read Guidelines Post #3)

The Mr Wong films are not great films. But very enjoyable in a low rent b way. The Mr Moto's are much more polished.

www.hometheaterforum.com

 

[Yeoman007]

Killers Kiss from 1955 is being released 1.37 by Kino Lorber. Shouldn't it be 1.66 or 1.85?

Kino-Lorber Insider Announcement Thread (Read Guidelines Post #3)

The Mr Wong films are not great films. But very enjoyable in a low rent b way. The Mr Moto's are much more polished.

www.hometheaterforum.com

Not according to the IMDb:

Killer's Kiss (1955) - Technical specifications - IMDb

Killer's Kiss (1955) - Movies, TV, Celebs, and more...

www.imdb.com

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Killers Kiss from 1955 is being released 1.37 by Kino Lorber. Shouldn't it be 1.66 or 1.85?

Kino-Lorber Insider Announcement Thread (Read Guidelines Post #3)

The Mr Wong films are not great films. But very enjoyable in a low rent b way. The Mr Moto's are much more polished.

www.hometheaterforum.com

Being it was an indie production, Kubrick wouldn’t have been locked into a studio requirement. Based on these 35mm frame enlargements, Academy is correct.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I was about to say the same. Kubrick was framing for the viewfinder on the cameras he rented, which were set at 1.37:1. He was a young, inexperienced filmmaker in a DIY environment renting equipment from places that would have supplied cameras to other indie and documentary filmmakers, where that ratio was more typical. His documentary shorts and first feature were also at that aspect ratio.