Aspect Ratio Documentation (6 Viewers)

[Peter Apruzzese]

More frames

 

[Robert Crawford]

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

As others have stated, the 1.37 ratio is the correct aspect ratio.

 

[Matt Hough]

I'm pretty sure the HD transfer of Killer's Kiss included as a bonus feature on Criterion's release of The Killing was in 1.37:1. The search engine for my review doesn't seem to be pulling it up immediately, but I'm pretty sure it was 1.37:1.

 

[DVDvision]

Killer's Kiss is 1.37.

The other two are where the confusion is on, The Killing and Paths of Glory are not square. Despite being released squared on DVD.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm pretty sure the HD transfer of Killer's Kiss included as a bonus feature on Criterion's release of The Killing was in 1.37:1. The search engine for my review doesn't seem to be pulling it up immediately, but I'm pretty sure it was 1.37:1.

That's correct as I checked prior to my previous post.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Someone recently made a blanket statement that 1.66:1 was the primary widescreen aspect ratio for United Artist films in the mid-1950s. Obviously, that assumption is wrong so the accurate data is shared here.

Research in primary source documents IS important.

From Motion Picture Exhibitor: April 13, 1955.

1.75 - Barefoot Contessa
1.75 - Battle Taxi
1.66 - Beachcomber
1.85 - Black Tuesday
1.85 - A Bullet for Joey
1.75 - Canyon Crossroads
1.75 - Crossed Swords
1.66 - The Diamond Wizard
1.66 - Golden Mistress
1.75 - Jesse James' Women
1.75 - Khyber Patrol
1.85 - Kiss Me Deadly
1.85 - Lawless Rider
1.66 - Malta Story
1.66 - Operation Manhunt
1.66 - Romeo and Juliet
1.75 - Sabaka
1.75 - Shield for Murder
2.55 - Sitting Bull
1.85 - Snow Creature
1.85 - Stranger on Horseback
1.75 - Suddenly
1.85 - Twist of Fate
2.1 - Vera Cruz
1.85 - White Orchid
1.66 - You Know What Sailors Are

By September of 1956, 1.85:1 had become the accepted non-anamorphic industry standard for widescreen presentation in the U.S.

 

[RolandL]

Not on Blu-ray but The Big Boodle 1957 on TCMHD in 1.33 AR, should be 1.85.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Somewhere among the nearly 7,000 posts (!) in this ten year old discussion is a comment that stereophonic sound installations were confined to big theatres in major cities only. I said at the time that assumption was incorrect and now I have primary source documentation to support my statement.

These seven pages are from the May 26, 1954 issue of Motion Picture Exhibitor and contain a listing of 3,060 theaters which were confirmed to have installed stereophonic sound equipment over the past year. Is your hometown theatre on this list?

For a primer on that exciting and turbulent year, this page on our website is essential reading: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-stereophonic-sound

 

[Joel Arndt]

Somewhere among the nearly 7,000 posts (!) in this ten year old discussion is a comment that stereophonic sound installations were confined to big theatres in major cities only. I said at the time that assumption was incorrect and now I have primary source documentation to support my statement.

These seven pages are from the May 26, 1954 issue of Motion Picture Exhibitor and contain a listing of 3,060 theaters which were confirmed to have installed stereophonic sound equipment over the past year. Is your hometown theatre on this list?

For a primer on that exciting and turbulent year, this page on our website is essential reading: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-stereophonic-sound

Bob, this is fascinating information. The Park Theater in my hometown of North Canton, OH isn't listed, but the three majors in neighboring downtown Canton, OH are listed (Loew's, Ohio and Palace) where I saw many films growing up.

 

[RolandL]

1.37?
Digital 3D?
Pulfrich 3-D?

So much garbage on IMDB.

Old transfer on TCMHD

Zoomed in

 

[Douglas R]

1.37?
Digital 3D?
Pulfrich 3-D?

So much garbage on IMDB.

View attachment 144555

Old transfer on TCMHD
View attachment 144556

Zoomed in
View attachment 144557

It’s best to correct errors when seen (as I try to do) - although it’s a full time job!

 

[Theo van Winden]

Hello everyone! This is the first time I post in this thread, I come here after many years reading this interesting forum and I am very interested in the aspect ratio issue.

Specifically a doubt has arisen to me regarding some Hammer films. I have consulted the following chart from the wonderful website 3dfilmarchive:

And I see that in 1964 0% of films appear with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. However, there are 2 Terence Fisher films from that year, "The Gorgon" and "The Earth Dies Screaming" whose Blu-ray releases are all 1.66:1.

Continuing with Hammer, there are two other films "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" and "Twins of Evil" which being from 1971 no longer appear in that image and also all of their Blu-ray releases are 1.66:1. From the chart, it looks like the last year the 1.66:1 aspect ratio was used in the UK was 1965.

So, does anyone know what was then the aspect ratio at which those 4 films were shown theatrically in the UK?

 

[Theo van Winden]

I remembered something I want to add to my previous question. There is a well-known British film starring Sean Connery from 1964, Golfinger, the Blu-ray release has an aspect ratio of 1.66:1.

However, if we go to 1964 in the chart above we see that ZERO British films were screened at that ratio.

These images from a 35mm print of Goldfinger appear to have a different aspect ratio:

Since it is hard matte, I imagine that it is a European, British print.

Let's see if this helps decipher what's going on with the aspect ratio of British films from the 1960s and early 1970s.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You are assuming that if there is an image on the print, that it was meant to be seen. That is not the case. Camera apertures/prints are hard matted for a variety of reasons.

I don’t have my documentation in front of me but I’m pretty sure the early Bond films are all composed for 1.75 which was the standard UK presentation ratio at the time of production.

Perhaps one of our UK research associates has more information?

 

[Theo van Winden]

You are assuming that if there is an image on the print, that it was meant to be seen. That is not the case. Camera apertures/prints are hard matted for a variety of reasons.

I don’t have my documentation in front of me but I’m pretty sure the early Bond films are all composed for 1.75 which was the standard UK presentation ratio at the time of production.

Perhaps one of our UK research associates has more information?

Thank you very much, Bob. Just what I imagined, 1.75:1. Your website, 3dfilmarchive, is the most helpful of any I've seen, I love it.

Could you tell me what was the aspect ratio in the UK of The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959) and The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)?

Both were distributed by United Artist (the former) and Warner Bros. (the latter) in the UK and USA but had different aspect ratios in each country.

I have read contradictory information, I assumed that both were screened in the UK with a 1.75:1 aspect ratio (like the Bond films) but Arrow released The Hound of the Baskervilles with a 1.66:1 ratio and Warner The Curse of Frankenstein with 3 different ratios and none 1.75:1, which completely baffles me.

 

[Robert Harris]

I remembered something I want to add to my previous question. There is a well-known British film starring Sean Connery from 1964, Golfinger, the Blu-ray release has an aspect ratio of 1.66:1.

However, if we go to 1964 in the chart above we see that ZERO British films were screened at that ratio.

These images from a 35mm print of Goldfinger appear to have a different aspect ratio:

Since it is hard matte, I imagine that it is a European, British print.

Let's see if this helps decipher what's going on with the aspect ratio of British films from the 1960s and early 1970s.

You're not seeing a hard matte. This is simply open matte camera aperture. The film was cropped in projection to whatever aspect ratio was desired. Correct, or incorrect.

 

[Worth]

I’ve read that the early Bonds were shot for 1.75, though they would have screened at 1.85 in America.

 

[Douglas R]

I’ve read that the early Bonds were shot for 1.75, though they would have screened at 1.85 in America.

Kine Weekly lists Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger as being filmed for 1.85:1.

 

[Douglas R]

Thank you very much, Bob. Just what I imagined, 1.75:1. Your website, 3dfilmarchive, is the most helpful of any I've seen, I love it.

Could you tell me what was the aspect ratio in the UK of The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959) and The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)?

Both were distributed by United Artist (the former) and Warner Bros. (the latter) in the UK and USA but had different aspect ratios in each country.

I have read contradictory information, I assumed that both were screened in the UK with a 1.75:1 aspect ratio (like the Bond films) but Arrow released The Hound of the Baskervilles with a 1.66:1 ratio and Warner The Curse of Frankenstein with 3 different ratios and none 1.75:1, which completely baffles me.

Kine Weekly has no aspect ratio listed for Hound of the Baskervilles. The Curse of Frankenstein is listed as being filmed in Hammerscope. Presumably, either an error or was initially intended to be in Hammerscope.

 

[B-ROLL]

Somewhere among the nearly 7,000 posts (!) in this ten year old discussion is a comment that stereophonic sound installations were confined to big theatres in major cities only. I said at the time that assumption was incorrect and now I have primary source documentation to support my statement.

These seven pages are from the May 26, 1954 issue of Motion Picture Exhibitor and contain a listing of 3,060 theaters which were confirmed to have installed stereophonic sound equipment over the past year. Is your hometown theatre on this list?

For a primer on that exciting and turbulent year, this page on our website is essential reading: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-stereophonic-sound

I was born 6 years after this list was compiled but I remember seeing films at The Palms

And if I'm not mistaken at the "Old" Fox theater

The first commercial Air-Conditioned building in Phoenix... which was torn down to make a city bus terminal ...