Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Theo van Winden]

As you have said, this is quite possible:

"Goldfinger" (1964)
UK - 1.75:1
USA - 1.85:1

According to this, the other two Hammer films I say, "The Gorgon" and "The Earth Dies Screaming" also have the wrong aspect ratio on all their Blu-ray releases. The chart indicates 0% in 1964 for 1.66:1.

Regardless, on Blu-ray releases with 2 aspect ratios the 1.85:1 is always accompanied by the 1.66:1 on British films and never by the 1.75:1. The only Blu-ray of a British film I have found with a 1.75:1 aspect ratio is “Quatermass II” (1957).

The above chart does not include 1971, I thought that since 1971 the 1.85:1 aspect ratio had won the "battle" but I recently read that in a very well known British film, "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), Stanley Kubrick decided from the start that the ratio was going to be 1.66:1:

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE: THE OLD ULTRA-VIOLENCE - Scraps from the loft

Stanley Kubrick lent a learned eye to A Clockwork Orange, enlisting lighting cameraman John Alcott, BSC to help create a bleak dystopian futurescape

scrapsfromtheloft.com

"However, there would be a loss of two stops of light. “The next day I get a telex that’s a yard long in which he explains to me that the 35mm format he’s shooting in is 1.66:1,” DiGiulio remembered."

I had almost assumed that in 1971 the 1.66:1 ratio had already disappeared until I read that. So, "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" and "Twins of Evil" (both 1971) could perhaps have been screened in the UK with that ratio, 1.66:1, but I believe both were 1.85:1 in the UK and in the USA.

As for "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1959) and "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957), I honestly have no idea how they were screened in UK theaters, but 1.37:1 for the latter I'm sure not.

"The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957) has already been discussed around here, especially after Warner's Blu-ray release. I'm trying to go back and look up what conclusion was reached in this thread. Although I seem to recall that there was still some hesitation between 1.85:1 (no doubt projected that way in the USA), 1.66:1 and 1.75:1. I suspect the same will happen with “The Hound of the Baskervilles”, I love both films.

As we have seen in the aforementioned chart, in 1957 only 12% of the films were screened with the 1.66:1 aspect ratio in the UK while in 1959 it was even lower, only 3%. Therefore, according to this, the Blu-ray releases probably have the wrong ratio, especially in the case of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" as it would not match either the supposedly correct UK ratio (1.75:1) or the US ratio (1.85:1) on this United Artists production. For now, I have been unable to find out.

 

[Douglas R]

As you have said, this is quite possible:

"Goldfinger" (1964)
UK - 1.75:1
USA - 1.85:1

According to this, the other two Hammer films I say, "The Gorgon" and "The Earth Dies Screaming" also have the wrong aspect ratio on all their Blu-ray releases. The chart indicates 0% in 1964 for 1.66:1.

Regardless, on Blu-ray releases with 2 aspect ratios the 1.85:1 is always accompanied by the 1.66:1 on British films and never by the 1.75:1. The only Blu-ray of a British film I have found with a 1.75:1 aspect ratio is “Quatermass II” (1957).

The above chart does not include 1971, I thought that since 1971 the 1.85:1 aspect ratio had won the "battle" but I recently read that in a very well known British film, "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), Stanley Kubrick decided from the start that the ratio was going to be 1.66:1:

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE: THE OLD ULTRA-VIOLENCE - Scraps from the loft

Stanley Kubrick lent a learned eye to A Clockwork Orange, enlisting lighting cameraman John Alcott, BSC to help create a bleak dystopian futurescape

scrapsfromtheloft.com

"However, there would be a loss of two stops of light. “The next day I get a telex that’s a yard long in which he explains to me that the 35mm format he’s shooting in is 1.66:1,” DiGiulio remembered."

I had almost assumed that in 1971 the 1.66:1 ratio had already disappeared until I read that. So, "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" and "Twins of Evil" (both 1971) could perhaps have been screened in the UK with that ratio, 1.66:1, but I believe both were 1.85:1 in the UK and in the USA.

As for "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1959) and "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957), I honestly have no idea how they were screened in UK theaters, but 1.37:1 for the latter I'm sure not.

"The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957) has already been discussed around here, especially after Warner's Blu-ray release. I'm trying to go back and look up what conclusion was reached in this thread. Although I seem to recall that there was still some hesitation between 1.85:1 (no doubt projected that way in the USA), 1.66:1 and 1.75:1. I suspect the same will happen with “The Hound of the Baskervilles”, I love both films.

As we have seen in the aforementioned chart, in 1957 only 12% of the films were screened with the 1.66:1 aspect ratio in the UK while in 1959 it was even lower, only 3%. Therefore, according to this, the Blu-ray releases probably have the wrong ratio, especially in the case of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" as it would not match either the supposedly correct UK ratio (1.75:1) or the US ratio (1.85:1) on this United Artists production. For now, I have been unable to find out.

The early Bond films were all 1.85:1 for U.K., not 1.75:1. Please see my post above with images from Kine Weekly.

 

[Theo van Winden]

Sorry Douglas R, I had written my message after reading this one:

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

And I understood that the early Bond films had been 1.85 for America and 1.75:1 for UK.

Now, I have seen the Kine Weekly listings and realize my mistake. Your information is wonderful, thank you very much.

In any case, everything else I have written is valid. About "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957) and "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1959) this appears on blu-ray.com:

The Curse of Frankenstein - Warner release:

Video
Codec: MPEG-4 AVC (33.95 Mbps)
Resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1, 1.67:1, 1.85:1
Original aspect ratio: 1.75:1

The Hound of the Baskervilles - Arrow release:

Video
Codec: MPEG-4 AVC (35.00 Mbps)
Resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 1.66:1
Original aspect ratio: 1.75:1

But I'm still not sure about it.

 

[Gary Couzens]

What this comes down to is that certain distributors simply assume that all UK films of the 1960s or 1970s which aren't in Scope are in 1.66:1 unless absolutely proven otherwise, and not even then. As you can see from that graph, 1.66:1 was not used that much and hardly at all from the early 1960s.

I review a lot of BFI releases and I'm frequently arguing with the ratios they release films in, in some cases when there's evidence on the discs themselves that the ratio they use is incorrect. They're also fond of transferring films in 1.37:1 when the film clearly should be wider - particularly so with archival shorts and documentaries which they use as extras.

The recent THE APPOINTMENT is one example - it's transferred in 1,37:1 (and fair enough the director may have authorised that as he was involved in the release) but it's a 35mm production from 1981 which was at least intended for theatrical release although it didn't get one. 1.37:1 is clearly the ratio almost everyone who saw the film saw it in, on VHS or television, but it certainly looks like it was intended to be wider.

See also the short THE DUMB WAITER, which is in 1.66:1 on the SHORT SHARP SHOCKS VOLUME 2 set. There's a stills gallery on the disc which includes a call sheet which specifies 1.85:1 as the aspect ratio.

As for Kubrick, he seemed to be a law unto himself. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE does indeed seem correctly framed at 1.66:1, or did when I saw it. BARRY LYNDON too, though film prints of that came with a note saying that the film should be shown at 1,66:1 and no wider than 1.75:1. Presumably he found that too difficult to arrange (there are stories of aperture plates being sent to cinemas and Kubrick employing people to sit in on screenings to make sure they were showing the film properly) as his later films are 1.85:1 but shot open-matte to protect for narrower ratios, including for television showings.

 

[Theo van Winden]

What this comes down to is that certain distributors simply assume that all UK films of the 1960s or 1970s which aren't in Scope are in 1.66:1 unless absolutely proven otherwise, and not even then. As you can see from that graph, 1.66:1 was not used that much and hardly at all from the early 1960s.

I review a lot of BFI releases and I'm frequently arguing with the ratios they release films in, in some cases when there's evidence on the discs themselves that the ratio they use is incorrect. They're also fond of transferring films in 1.37:1 when the film clearly should be wider - particularly so with archival shorts and documentaries which they use as extras.

The recent THE APPOINTMENT is one example - it's transferred in 1,37:1 (and fair enough the director may have authorised that as he was involved in the release) but it's a 35mm production from 1981 which was at least intended for theatrical release although it didn't get one. 1.37:1 is clearly the ratio almost everyone who saw the film saw it in, on VHS or television, but it certainly looks like it was intended to be wider.

See also the short THE DUMB WAITER, which is in 1.66:1 on the SHORT SHARP SHOCKS VOLUME 2 set. There's a stills gallery on the disc which includes a call sheet which specifies 1.85:1 as the aspect ratio.

As for Kubrick, he seemed to be a law unto himself. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE does indeed seem correctly framed at 1.66:1, or did when I saw it. BARRY LYNDON too, though film prints of that came with a note saying that the film should be shown at 1,66:1 and no wider than 1.75:1. Presumably he found that too difficult to arrange (there are stories of aperture plates being sent to cinemas and Kubrick employing people to sit in on screenings to make sure they were showing the film properly) as his later films are 1.85:1 but shot open-matte to protect for narrower ratios, including for television showings.

Thank you very much for all this information. I have not yet been able to find the theatrical exhibition ratio of "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957) and "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1959) in UK cinemas.

However, while searching for all this, I found in a book called "Reel Views 2: The Ultimate Guide to the Best 1,000 Modern Movies on DVD and Video" a curious thing. There, its author mentions that "Dr. No" was shown in the UK with a ratio of 1.75:1:

This contradicts information from Kine Weekly. One of the 2 has to be wrong, unless both ratios, 1.75:1 (as I thought) and 1.85:1, were used in the UK.

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

I was going to ask about the US theatrical release aspect ratio of "Giant" (1956), but I understand this confirms that the aspect ratio of Warner's blu-ray is incorrect (1.66:1) when it should be (1.85) since it was released in the US in October. Or was there an exception with this George Stevens film?

 

[Vern Dias]

The original theatrical release of "Giant" was a projectionist's nightmare.

It actually came with a printed cue sheet with instructions on when to change the volume settings for certain scenes(+3 points on the fader here, back to normal here, -2 points on the fader here, back to normal here, etc, etc, etc) and I believe there were also instructions on cheating the framing as well. 1.85 would have been very tight. I know the theatre I was involved in ran it at 1.66:1.

That was a long time ago, too bad we didn't have copiers back then.

 

[Robert Harris]

I’ll make the point once again.

Aspect ratios drifted, and it was in many cases up to the theater to see what looked best at their venue.

Home theater aspect ratios can make sense.

One is doing an exact x/y crop, which will always be perfectly rectangular, and that’s fine.

But many theatrical did not, and could not.

Consider any theater projecting from a distance and height, and what would an uncropped image look like? An inverted trapezoid. Start cropping that projected image, and 30% of the image can be lost.

So…

Does it matter if the masked image is 1.66, 75 or 85?

No.

You work with what you have to create the most satisfactory presentation possible, and published aspect ratios be damned.

Very few venues had a straight shot out of the booth to center screen.

 

[Vern Dias]

I’ll make the point once again.

Aspect ratios drifted, and it was in many cases up to the theater to see what looked best at their venue.

Home theater aspect ratios can make sense.

One is doing an exact x/y crop, which will always be perfectly rectangular, and that’s fine.

But many theatrical did not, and could not.

Consider any theater projecting from a distance and height, and what would an uncropped image look like? An inverted trapezoid. Start cropping that projected image, and 30% of the image can be lost.

So…

Does it matter if the masked image is 1.66, 75 or 85?

No.

You work with what you have to create the most satisfactory presentation possible, and published aspect ratios be damned.

Very few venues had a straight shot out of the booth to center screen.

Yep, in 1956, nobody had a straight shot from all the projectors because platters didn't exist then. Minimum 2, sometimes 3, rarely 4 projectors in a booth, so only one had a straight shot.

And 0 degrees vertical projection angle wasn't common until 3 strip Cinerama.

 

[Henry Gondorff]

In addition to horrendous keystoning and image loss, extreme down-angle projection throws also introduced focus error and, in the most extreme cases, vertical stretch. I know of two theaters that abandoned their old upper balcony booths when installing Todd-AO projectors, relocating to a newly constructed booth in either the lower balcony or main floor, resulting in a greatly improved image.

 

[RolandL]

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Our latest 3-D Blu-ray restoration; presented for the first time since 1954 in the original intended theatrical aspect ratio of 1.65:1.

This is in compatible 3-D which will play in polarized 3-D if you have the proper equipment OR anaglyphic 3-D which can be seen on any display!

https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/96...RZBwq008_-ldYd70dxFen6pkcJNEemjk15_vnX8qUt7ng

 

[Bob Furmanek]

1.65:1 was one of several UK aspect ratio's in the fall of 1953 when this film was in production. More information can be found here:

Widescreen Documentation - 3dfilmarchive

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My apologies, I was tagged in a post in the Kino announcement thread regarding SECRET OF THE INCAS about a month ago. The restoration plate has been incredibly full and I missed the tag.

To answer the question.

When researching this data, it is absolutely essential to go by studio policy at the time of principal photography and not the release date.

Paramount Pictures - as a matter of studio policy - switched to 100% widescreen cinematography on March 24, 1953. The initial studio house widescreen aspect ratio was 1.66:1. THOSE REDHEADS FROM SEATTLE began shooting for that presentation ratio on March 16, 1953.

1.66:1 would remain the studios widescreen ratio throughout September until filming began of WHITE CHRISTMAS on September 21, 1953. That film, like all VistaVision productions, was optimally composed for 1.85:1.

After that, ratios varied a bit.

Title - First Day of Principal Photography - Intended Aspect Ratio

SABRINA (September 28, 1953) 1.75:1

ABOUT MRS. LESLIE (October 12, 1953) 1.85:1

LIVING IT UP (October 19, 1953) 1.85:1

SECRET OF THE INCAS (October 19, 1953) 1.85:1

REAR WINDOW (November 27, 1953) 1.66:1

CONQUEST OF SPACE (November 30, 1953) 1.66:1

The dust finally settled on February 13, 1954 when Paramount announced that 1.85:1 is their new studio house ratio for all future productions.

More information, including primary source documents, can be found on this page of our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

Hope this helps!

 

[ABritch]

My apologies, I was tagged in a post in the Kino announcement thread regarding SECRET OF THE INCAS about a month ago. The restoration plate has been incredibly full and I missed the tag.

To answer the question.

When researching this data, it is absolutely essential to go by studio policy at the time of principal photography and not the release date.

Paramount Pictures - as a matter of studio policy - switched to 100% widescreen cinematography on March 24, 1953. The initial studio house widescreen aspect ratio was 1.66:1. THOSE REDHEADS FROM SEATTLE began shooting for that presentation ratio on March 16, 1953.

1.66:1 would remain the studios widescreen ratio throughout September until filming began of WHITE CHRISTMAS on September 21, 1953. That film, like all VistaVision productions, was optimally composed for 1.85:1.

After that, ratios varied a bit.

Title - First Day of Principal Photography - Intended Aspect Ratio

SABRINA (September 28, 1953) 1.75:1

ABOUT MRS. LESLIE (October 12, 1953) 1.85:1

LIVING IT UP (October 19, 1953) 1.85:1

SECRET OF THE INCAS (October 19, 1953) 1.85:1

REAR WINDOW (November 27, 1953) 1.66:1

CONQUEST OF SPACE (November 30, 1953) 1.66:1

The dust finally settled on February 13, 1954 when Paramount announced that 1.85:1 is their new studio house ratio for all future productions.

More information, including primary source documents, can be found on this page of our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

Hope this helps!

Hi Bob
could you clear up SHANE for me please.
the BluRay is 1.37:1 but I've read that when released it was projected at a wider ratio, 1.66:1 (which is released on a region B BluRay.)

what ratio is the proper one to view this glorious film in?

 

[ABritch]

My apologies, I was tagged in a post in the Kino announcement thread regarding SECRET OF THE INCAS about a month ago. The restoration plate has been incredibly full and I missed the tag.

To answer the question.

When researching this data, it is absolutely essential to go by studio policy at the time of principal photography and not the release date.

Paramount Pictures - as a matter of studio policy - switched to 100% widescreen cinematography on March 24, 1953. The initial studio house widescreen aspect ratio was 1.66:1. THOSE REDHEADS FROM SEATTLE began shooting for that presentation ratio on March 16, 1953.

1.66:1 would remain the studios widescreen ratio throughout September until filming began of WHITE CHRISTMAS on September 21, 1953. That film, like all VistaVision productions, was optimally composed for 1.85:1.

After that, ratios varied a bit.

Title - First Day of Principal Photography - Intended Aspect Ratio

SABRINA (September 28, 1953) 1.75:1

ABOUT MRS. LESLIE (October 12, 1953) 1.85:1

LIVING IT UP (October 19, 1953) 1.85:1

SECRET OF THE INCAS (October 19, 1953) 1.85:1

REAR WINDOW (November 27, 1953) 1.66:1

CONQUEST OF SPACE (November 30, 1953) 1.66:1

The dust finally settled on February 13, 1954 when Paramount announced that 1.85:1 is their new studio house ratio for all future productions.

More information, including primary source documents, can be found on this page of our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

Hope this helps!

Hi Bob
can you tell me if I have any AR errors in my list of Elvis Presley films please?



Love Me Tender 20th Century Fox 1956 2.35:1 (shot at 2.55:1, soundtrack reduces AR to 2.35:1)

Loving You Paramount 1957 1.85:1 (Shot with VistaVision Camera, Protected at 1.66:1. Composed to 1.85:1.)

Jailhouse Rock MGM 1957 2.35:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area and composed to 1.85:1. The release prints were made by Panavision using an anamorphic lens to extract a 2.35:1 image so the film could be projected at the aspect ratio associated with Cinemascope)

King Creole Paramount 1958 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

G.I. Blues Paramount 1960 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Flaming Star 20th Century Fox 1960 2.35:1 (shot at 2.55:1, soundtrack reduces AR to 2.35:1)

Wild in the Country 20th Century Fox 1961 2.35:1 (shot at 2.55:1, soundtrack reduces AR to 2.35:1)

Blue Hawaii Paramount 1961 2.35:1

Follow That Dream United Artists 1962 2.35:1

Kid Galahad United Artists 1962 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Girls! Girls! Girls! Paramount 1962 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

It Happened at the World's Fair MGM 1963 2.35:1

Fun in Acapulco Paramount 1963 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Viva Las Vegas MGM 1964 2.35:1

Kissin' Cousins MGM 1964 2.35:1

Roustabout Paramount 1964 2.35:1

Girl Happy MGM 1965 2.35:1

Tickle Me Allied Artists 1965 2.35:1

Harum Scarum MGM 1965 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Frankie and Johnny United Artists 1966 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Paradise, Hawaiian Style Paramount 1966 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Spinout MGM 1966 2.35:1

Double Trouble MGM 1967 2.35:1

Easy Come, Easy Go Paramount 1967 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Clambake United Artists 1967 2.35:1

Speedway MGM 1968 2.35:1

Stay Away, Joe MGM 1968 2.35:1

Live a Little, Love a Little MGM 1968 2.35:1

Charro! National General Pictures 1969 2.35:1

The Trouble with Girls MGM 1969 2.35:1

Change Of Habit Universal 1969 1.85:1 (shot Flat, exposing a 1.37:1 area, protected at 1.66:1 and composed to 1.85:1)

Elvis: That's The Way It Is MGM 1970 2.35:1

Elvis On Tour MGM 1972 2.35:1 (special mattes for the single (1.37), double (1.85), and triple (2.35) frames, these negatives were rephotographed in an optical camera to convert to a 2.35 Techniscope image for projection. Elvis On Tour was like Woodstock, projected 2.35 with the 1.85 sequences window boxed in the 2.35 frame, sometimes the single panel would open up to full 2.35, but it was all designed to be within the 2.35 frame.)

 

[Robert Crawford]

Hi Bob
could you clear up SHANE for me please.
the BluRay is 1.37:1 but I've read that when released it was projected at a wider ratio, 1.66:1 (which is released on a region B BluRay.)

what ratio is the proper one to view this glorious film in?

I'm not Bob, but I believe the proper ratio is 1.37 as filming for this movie was completed in 1951. It didn't get released until 1953, almost two years after filming was completed. I've watched both ratios and my preference is the 1.37 ratio.

 

[DVDvision]

Shane was shot for 1.37:1 but released in 1.66:1.
There's a great Blu-ray from Eureka I think, in the UK, which has both versions, the 1.66:1 replicating the theatrical aspect ration with some vertical adjustments. It's good to own both for historical purposes (and enjoyement of this classic in both formats).

 

[plektret]

What's the OAR for The Prince and the Showgirl (1957)?

/Thanks

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Hi Bob
could you clear up SHANE for me please.
the BluRay is 1.37:1 but I've read that when released it was projected at a wider ratio, 1.66:1 (which is released on a region B BluRay.)

what ratio is the proper one to view this glorious film in?

The whole saga of Shane's AR starts around page 13 of this thread. The Tl;dr version of it is this: Shane "kinda" worked in 1.66:1 which is why it was selected as one of Paramount's first 1.66:1 features, even though it was composed for 1.37:1.

 

[uncledougie]

What's the OAR for The Prince and the Showgirl (1957)?

/Thanks

I finally got around to watching tonight the DVD from the special edition box set I acquired long ago, which includes a separate Marilyn Monroe documentary, booklet, reproduction one sheet, and actual 35mm cel plastic encased on a card stock sheet. I’d been anticipating finally seeing it in widescreen, since the credits sheet under the shrink wrap listed 1.85:1. Alas, the movie was in a snapper case and on the back said 1.33:1. The film began with the typical disclaimed that it had been “modified to fit your screen,” and in fact it was Academy ratio. The title music sound started out thin and shaky but audio was somewhat improved in the dialogue scenes; the picture quality was okay but both sound and picture could use skillful restoration. There was generous headroom in most scenes, but I’m not so sure the best framing wouldn’t be 1.66:1. The IMDb detail simply states 1.37:1, but that’s the way it was filmed, not necessarily projected. As was the case with Criterion’s Summertime (1955), which they stood firm insisting on 1.37:1, I see the interim ratio of 1.66:1 as the most aesthetically pleasing, but suspect the erroneous 1.85:1 listed on the outer package may have been what audiences saw in 1957.