David Lean's Summertime Blu Ray available at Amazon Japan (1 Viewer)

[Yorkshire]

It'll certainly be interesting to see what criterion do.

Looking at those 2 x 10 minute clips on YouTube again with masking, it get's a tad uncomfortable at times.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

on YouTube

 

[Yorkshire]

Don't worry, I'll be getting the Blu-ray Disc, too.



Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Now that it's confirmed that SUMMERTIME was composed for widescreen, I'm certain that Criterion will do the right thing.

 

[Yorkshire]

Now that it's confirmed that SUMMERTIME was composed for widescreen, I'm certain that Criterion will do the right thing.

Is this 'certainty' based on their aspect ratio decisions for On the Waterfront and Lord of the Flies?

As for this 'confirmation'...

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

 

[Brandon Conway]

Is this 'certainty' based on their aspect ratio decisions for On the Waterfront and Lord of the Flies?

As for this 'confirmation'...

Steve W

On the Waterfront has the theatrical in the set (1.85:1), though the debate of how zoomed it is and how it is not the featured AR for the set will probably continue ad infinitum.

Lord of the Flies is a still murky in regards to their reasoning for going 1.37:1. They do have the film editor's input for the release.

Summertime is from a whole different era of home video (as said earlier, the 1998 DVD is a replica of the 1991 LD). It's really an archaic release.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thankfully, Criterion did their research and released MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION in Sirk's intended ratio of 2.1.

 

[Brandon Conway]

As far as I know, the last Criterion released title in 1.37:1 instead of properly widescreen was the Monsters & Madmen set from Jan 2007. (Exceptions for releases where filmmakers overruled convention, such as the Godard 60s titles, Blast of Silence, etc. Lord of the Flies likely falls into this scenario).

I know there has been debate over Diabolique (BD and DVD re-release in May 2011), but I've yet to see documentation that the French studios and this film in particular had gone widescreen when it was shot.

Of course, there are the UA titles licensed from MGM that are 1.66:1 when documentation suggests they should be 1.75:1 (or was it 1.85:1?), but that's not nearly as egregious.

 

[Doctorossi]

I know there has been debate over Diabolique (BD and DVD re-release in May 2011), but I've yet to see documentation that the French studios and this film in particular had gone widescreen when it was shot.

I'd really love to see something (or, preferably, somethings) definitive on that title, as well.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I just posted some information here:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-research/?p=3955970

 

[Robin9]

Summertime.JPG

I could not agree more with the first two sentences of that review. Well, perhaps I could. Two statues should have been erected; one for Jack Hildyard and one for his camera operator, Peter Newbrook.

Any BRD of this wonderful film must capture the look of how it appeared on the big screen when new. Otherwise it's a waste of time and effort.

 

[Yorkshire]

I could not agree more with the first two sentences of that review. Well, perhaps I could. Two statues should have been erected; one for Jack Hildyard and one for his camera operator, Peter Newbrook.

Any BRD of this wonderful film must capture the look of how it appeared on the big screen when new. Otherwise it's a waste of time and effort.

Interestingly, given that the film's Italian titles are clearly not intended for widescreen (as seen earlier in the thread) the film premierred in Italy at the Venice Film Festival.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks for posting that Italian overlay, Steve. It's another prime example of a lab screwing up by placing a 1.37:1 optical on a widescreen film.

I bet the projectionist at the Venice Film Festival had fun riding that one during the credits!

EDIT: The image posted by Steve is severely zoomed. See post #56 for an image comparison.

From January 16, 1954

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Interestingly, given that the film's Italian titles are clearly not intended for widescreen (as seen earlier in the thread) the film premierred in Italy at the Venice Film Festival. Steve W

So the question then would be, would the film premiere in its original English version? I would assume that an Italian dub/titles would be prepared for a general release, where at a festival the original version would screen, not a version with incorrect ratio titles done over a textless that would be sent out to the distributors in each country to put their own credits on as they saw fit...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Steve, one additonal point on the value of framegrabs.

On the left is the main title from the Japanese Blu-ray. On the right is the main title from the source you posted as "evidence" of 1.37:1 intent. This clip on You Tube appears to be transferred from a 16mm print.

Take notice of how much image is missing on the sides.

View attachment 1380


I recall reading your gleeful announcement on the Hammer board about the "discredited" trade journals that we have utilized as important primary source documents in our aspect ratio research.

Can I now boast about the "discredited" framegrabs being no evidence whatsoever of directorial intent?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

 

[haineshisway]

Again, it must be pointed out that nothing you post is going to change the tenor of the responses you will get. You've proven time and again how erroneous stuff is and none of it matters. It's almost trollish behavior to post a frame grab from a severely zoomed-in 16mm print yet and think you're fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Well, in case anybody visits this thread who isn't aware of these issues, they might be fooled into accepting such "evidence."

Here's the main title in the UK standard at the start of principal photography, 1.65:1.

The post February 1955 UK standard of 1.75:1.

And finally in the Fascist Vision approved 1.85:1

Keep in mind, this transfer for the Japanese Blu-ray might be slightly zoomed as well.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit