NIGHT/CURSE OF THE DEMON…Coming Soon From Indicator (1 Viewer)

[Alan Tully]

I can sort of understand why there was no international standard, because when is there ever? But why wasn't there a single British standard?

Well it was the same in the States, all those 1:75 Disney films & 1:66 UA films, & then there was the free for all in the fifties.

 

[CarlosMeat]

The first three Bond films are 1.66:1 are these not British films ? Are they incorrect AR ? The graph shows only one film of that AR during that period.

 

[Douglas R]

The first three Bond films are 1.66:1 are these not British films ? Are they incorrect AR ? The graph shows only one film of that AR during that period.

DR NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER were all shot at Pinewood for 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Well it was the same in the States, all those 1:75 Disney films & 1:66 UA films, & then there was the free for all in the fifties.

It may have been a free-for-all in 1953 and early 1954, but by 1955 things had stabilized in the US with 1.85:1 the prominent non-anamorphic ratio.

What post-1954 UA films are 1:66?

 

[Alan Tully]

It may have been a free-for-all in 1953 and early 1954, but by 1955 things had stabilized in the US with 1.85:1 the prominent non-anamorphic ratio.

What post-1954 UA films are 1:66?

Well I was thinking of UA because of all the 1:66 non-anamorphic UA DVD's that MGM released (obviously using very old masters), a few titles: Tom Jones/The Train/Help!/What's New Pussycat/How To Murder Your Wife. Now I know you can drive a coach & horses through that little list, but I can only go by the discs I bought & the very unreliable IMDB, I don't have all the paperwork (none of it in fact). Personally I don't have a problem with a film that was probably shown in 1:85 & is now available in 1:66, I don't mind those little black strips down the sides & a tiny bit more headroom, & I know that's very wrong of me.

 

[CarlosMeat]

DR NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER were all shot at Pinewood for 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

I see ,why are these films presented on Blu Ray as 1.66:1 I wonder ?

 

[CarlosMeat]

From cinematography.com
---When I woked neg prep I had to set up a number of Bond trailers for telecine. The first three titles are definately hard matted at 1.66/1.

Incidentaly, the MGM customer rep mentioned that the Bond movies and 'Some Like It Hot' were MGM's biggest cash cows.
'Some Like It Hot' is also 1.66/1 hard matte.


---LV

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Hard-matting is one thing: intended aspect ratio is another.

In the post-1953 period - and until the late 1950's - most non-anamorphic widescreen films were hard-matted at 1.37:1 for protection.

The same applies in the 1960's to hard-matted 1.66 titles.

It's all good, Alan. At some point about 15 or 20 years ago. someone in charge of mastering at MGM decided to pull a Criterion and make every widescreen film 1.66 when most (all?) were actually intended for 1.85:1.

In fact, the only post-1954 non-1.85 UA titles that immediately come to mind are the Bel-Air Productions which are composed for 1.75:1.

For the complete documented story of the transition in 1953, please see this acclaimed article on our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I see ,why are these films presented on Blu Ray as 1.66:1 I wonder ?

Sloppy research.

The documentation is there in Kine Weekly and Boxoffice, nobody bothered to check!

 

[CarlosMeat]

I see ,why are these films presented on Blu Ray as 1.66:1 I wonder ?

Sloppy research.

The documentation is there in Kine Weekly and Boxoffice, nobody bothered to check!

These films are presented on Blu Ray in 1.66:1 however. Are you saying that those involved in the film to Blu Ray were sloppy in their research thus this is a mistake ?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, that's not the intended aspect ratio.

 

[CarlosMeat]

I see ,Thanks !

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My pleasure!

 

[Johnny Angell]

Send me my Demon now!!!

 

[Douglas R]

These films are presented on Blu Ray in 1.66:1 however. Are you saying that those involved in the film to Blu Ray were sloppy in their research thus this is a mistake ?

I have an old copy of Widescreen Review from 1994 which reviewed the Laser discs of the first three Bond films and refers to them as being "in the original European 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio". It's no wonder that so many people have assumed 1.66:1 to be standard for British films when mistakes like that were being made in respected journals. Curiously, although the current Blu-rays of those films are 1.66:1, the earliest DVD releases were 1.78:1.

 

[Worth]

The Criterion laserdiscs of the early Bonds said they were in their original 1.75 ratio.

 

[CarlosMeat]

Still many internet reviews indicating that 1.66:1 was the intended AR for each of the first three Bond films. I guess this is just one of those things when repeated frequently enough becomes the truth unfortunately.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

There are still people who claim that all golden age 3-D movies were originally shown in red/cyan anaglyphic.

You should only trust primary source documentation.

 

[CarlosMeat]

There are still people who claim that all golden age 3-D movies were originally shown in red/cyan anaglyphic.

You should only trust primary source documentation.

---LV
No, I get it just sad really. So many of these sources I'd have trusted previously for the most part like WSR. At one point Kaleidescape was saying that at least they measured titles as presented on Blu Ray so their quoted AR for the title was correct. I actually went to the extent of using the meta data from them to control my masking system ,projector AR instruction and anamorphic lens sled. Took about a day to find out that they had AR wrong all over the place.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I’ve asked before, but got no reply. Will any of the versions on this new release reduce the screen time of the Demon?