Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

Is it true that no publicity is bad publicity?
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/05/is_furmanek_a_m.php

 

[Bob Cashill]

Jeffrey Wells--can't live with him, can't shoot him.

 

[John Weller]

That doesn't surprise me, John. Thanks for the update!

No problemo! El Topo looked Academy but that maybe down to the DVD transfer.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Beware of zoomed in transfers!
As Jack Theakston said, "the only way to be sure is to go back to the 35mm element."
How true!

 

[John Weller]

I think a good example of a dvd transfer that is presented OAR but obviously cropped is Earth VS The Flying Saucers, the credits and car shots look way off centre.

 

[Charles Smith]

You don't by any chance mean Earth vs. the Spider, do you? I just watched that on the double-feature "Arkoff Collection" DVD, and it's a 4x3 transfer that's definitely off center, and maybe even cropped. It just didn't look or feel right no matter what I did, and I ended up leaving it alone and watching it as is.

EDIT: (Not that there's much you can do -- either "zoom" it to the 1.85 approximation or leave it alone.)

 

[RolandL]

Beware of zoomed in transfers!
As Jack Theakston said, "the only way to be sure is to go back to the 35mm element."
How true!

Yes, remember Kiss Me Kate? It was zoomed in on all four sides -

 

[Bob Furmanek]

KATE is a unique case because it was photographed full aperture (no track) composed for 1.75 and then optically reduced by Technicolor to 1.37 when they made the matrices. That's why one of the older video transfers from an IP off the camera negative (not centered) was missing the left side.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Jeffrey Wells--can't live with him, can't shoot him.

 

[John Weller]

You don't by any chance mean Earth vs. the Spider, do you?  I just watched that on the double-feature "Arkoff Collection" DVD, and it's a 4x3 transfer that's definitely off center, and maybe even cropped.  It just didn't look or feel right no matter what I did, and I ended up leaving it alone and watching it as is.
EDIT:  (Not that there's much you can do -- either "zoom" it to the 1.85 approximation or leave it alone.)

Flying Saucers - it's presented 1.85:1 but doesn't look like it's a genuine widescreen transfer. But Spider is a good example too!

 

[John Weller]

Are Fritz Lang's 1959 German films (Indian Tomb, Tiger Of Eschnapur) supposed to be Academy or wide? They look the former on the DVDs, but that don't mean Jack!
On a similar topic, Les Diaboliques should definetly be seen wide.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Bob Cashill /t/319469/aspect-ratio-research/90#post_3930442
Jeffrey Wells--can't live with him, can't shoot him.

Truth. I mean, how in the hell does Shadows qualify as being a studio production? It's as minimalist and "independent" a film as one can get.

 

[Matt Hough]

I finally got around to watching Houdini last night on Blu-ray. Seemed like an awful lot of headroom, so I got the Samsung BD player to frame it at (basically) 1.66:1, and it played just fine for the most part. What was the suggested theatrical projection ratio for this movie?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

HOUDINI began shooting in September 1952 and was composed for 1.37.

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek /t/319469/aspect-ratio-research/90#post_3931705
HOUDINI began shooting in September 1952 and was composed for 1.37.

Thanks, Bob!

 

[seangood79]

Is it true that no publicity is bad publicity?
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/05/is_furmanek_a_m.php

He's been on this strange crusade for at least 2 years now.
I'm friends with the projectionist mentioned in this posting
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/08/waterfront_in_h_1.php
From what I can tell, everything he wrote is accurate, Jeffrey Wells was being a jerk.
Wells portrays him as being dim and clueless, but how would react if you're trying to do your job, and some guy you don't know comes up and starts yelling something to the equivalent of "Why is the sky blue! It's supposed to be green! You're doing it wrong!"
I'd also like to address his "comically soft" comment. If you attend an outdoor screening, you have to expect the elements to come into play. The screening was nearly cancelled because of the high winds that night. The inflatable screen is basically a giant sail, and those winds made it difficult to focus. If it wasn't anchored properly as he said, it would have quickly become a very scary experience for everyone that night.
I'll say it again, the guy's a jerk.

 

[bgart13]

Bob, what truly was the theatrical aspect ratio for George Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD? There are a number of people who think it was 1.85 even though Romero states it was shot for 1.37. Can you settle this perhaps?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

 

[bgart13]

Wow, I did not think 1.85 was accurate. Is it possible it was intended to be 1.37 but the distributor made it 1.85?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Not too many theaters were still running 1.37 in October, 1968.