In November, The Far Country (1955) coming from Arrow (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I think this film was originally released 2.1 to movie theaters even though it was filmed 1.85 ratio?

I'm looking forward to watching this Blu-ray after reading so many complaints about the stills. The video presentation might not be pristine, but, I'm afraid this might be the best we ever get on physical disc.

Filmed open matte, or 1.37.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm not sure what the point of including a second disc with a 2.1 cropping of the film is. The above review has a series of matching screen caps from the two versions. Looking at this for what it is: a very traditionally shot 1954 vintage film; I don't think the 2.1 ratio does anything good for any of the included caps:
View attachment 64883
Poor Ruth - chopped at the head and chopped at the hand.

Arrow says: "The original 35mm camera negative was scanned in 4K resolution at NBC Universal's Studio Post facility. The film was graded and restored at Silver Salt Restoration, London."
The caps shown on Blu Ray and Beaver don't look like a 4k scan from the original 35mm camera negative. They seem to be from a duplicate negative or even a generation worse. All those soft edges and that blotchy irregular grain.

No OCN ever reproduced like that. It’s an error.

 

[Mark-P]

Mr. Furmanek documents the AR of The Far Country to be 2:1 here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen
I, for one, am thrilled that Arrow is providing this version as an option.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Furmanek documents the AR of The Far Country to be 2:1 here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen
I, for one, am thrilled that Arrow is providing this version as an option.

2:1 creates the same widescreen “scope” illusion, as SuperScope, by cropping films, some not designed to be cropped, to a near-scope aspect ratio. Seldom felt that it worked.

Imagine Olivier’s King Henry V - cropped.

 

[OliverK]

No OCN ever reproduced like that. It’s an error.

I contacted Arrow asking if there may have been a mixup so that they received an older HD master and this was their answer:

The Far Country was exclusively restored by Arrow Films and is presented in both original aspect ratios of 2.00:1 and 1.85:1 with mono sound. The original 35mm camera negative was scanned in 4K resolution at NBC Universal’s Studio Post facility. The film was graded and restored at Silver Salt Restoration, London. The original 35mm negative had undergone serious deterioration, resulting in excessive density fluctuation throughout all the reels, affecting colour and detail throughout the film. Unfortunately no other suitable pre-print elements had been kept, so extensive work was undertaken to reduce the damage while retaining the original film grain and image detail. Previous DVD releases of The Far Country had also used this source element but the effect of the film damage was reduced by Universal’s standard application of noise/grain reduction, as well as the work being completed in the lower SD resolution.

I still think that it looks like an older HD master.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Just because the original marketing idiots botched the release of this film doesn't mean that it looks good that way. That's like approving of what MGM did to Gone with the Wind when they re-re-released it with the top and bottom of the picture chopped off.

Thanks for enlightening us about what you think of past Universal executives, but, the disc does contain the 1.85 ratio.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Filmed open matte, or 1.37.

Then why not just released it in 1.37 ratio then? They started filming this movie on August 19, 1953, and finished up in October of that year, so why didn't they filmed it in 1.85 ratio like other movies filmed during the later part of 1953? You sure you're not mixing this movie up with "Thunder Bay" that was filmed in 1952, and released in 1953, in 1.85 ratio?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Universal shut down the studio in May 1953 and converted 100% to widescreen cinematography at that time.

Information and original UI studio documents can be found here.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

 

[Robert Crawford]

Universal shut down the studio in May 1953 and converted 100% to widescreen cinematography at that time.

Information and original UI studio documents can be found here.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

Thank you for sharing that information.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

During principal photography, the dailies were screened in 1.85 for production personnel and 2:1 for studio executives.

 

[Robert Crawford]

During principal photography, the dailies were screened in 1.85 for production personnel and 2:1 for studio executives.

That tells you which people thought what ratio how the film should be shown.

 

[Robin9]

Just because the original marketing idiots botched the release of this film doesn't mean that it looks good that way. That's like approving of what MGM did to Gone with the Wind when they re-re-released it with the top and bottom of the picture chopped off.

Some film lovers are completists and they want what was originally shown as a second option. Having both options available might increase sales of the disc.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Principal photography commenced August 19, 1953.

 

[Robert Harris]

Principal photography commenced August 19, 1953.

View attachment 64885

Studio execs, and their keepers were known to do odd things. Cropping to 2:1 is a foolish exercise for this film. It may work for others. Possibly this one was a bit close to ordained change

 

[Robert Harris]

I contacted Arrow asking if there may have been a mixup so that they received an older HD master and this was their answer:

The Far Country was exclusively restored by Arrow Films and is presented in both original aspect ratios of 2.00:1 and 1.85:1 with mono sound. The original 35mm camera negative was scanned in 4K resolution at NBC Universal’s Studio Post facility. The film was graded and restored at Silver Salt Restoration, London. The original 35mm negative had undergone serious deterioration, resulting in excessive density fluctuation throughout all the reels, affecting colour and detail throughout the film. Unfortunately no other suitable pre-print elements had been kept, so extensive work was undertaken to reduce the damage while retaining the original film grain and image detail. Previous DVD releases of The Far Country had also used this source element but the effect of the film damage was reduced by Universal’s standard application of noise/grain reduction, as well as the work being completed in the lower SD resolution.

I still think that it looks like an older HD master.

And not an original negative. I also don’t believe that there are no other elements for the film.

 

[Lord Dalek]

2.00:1 was just Universal's thing back in the day. Maybe they were trying to be cute and sepparate themselves from the 1.66:1 that Paramount was pushing at the time. Whatever the reason, the fact that it isn't an improvement on 1.85 just highlights how much of a turkey shoot soft matteing really is.

 

[Robert Harris]

2.00:1 was just Universal's thing back in the day. Maybe they were trying to be cute and sepparate themselves from the 1.66:1 that Paramount was pushing at the time. Whatever the reason, the fact that it isn't an improvement on 1.85 just highlights how much of a turkey shoot soft matteing really is.

Whatever problems may have existed, they have nothing to do with the amount of real estate exposed on the negative, be it regular aperture open matte, or S35.

There are viable reasons why widescreen films were shot open matte, and cropped in projection.

 

[OliverK]

And not an original negative. I also don’t believe that there are no other elements for the film.

I appreciate them taking the time to answer my questions but this is a case where I can't shake the feeling that somewhere there must have been some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding as to what has been scanned and/or delivered.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Studio policy at the time of principal photography.

 

[Robert Harris]

Studio policy at the time of principal photography.

View attachment 64886

An interesting, but oddly worded document.

Shooting FA or full aperture, would not affect the amount of space for mag tracks, which were, of necessity, striped both in and outboard of the perfs.

Was there a production other than The Robe that ran at 2.66, with dubbers?