Proper AR for "House of Wax" (1953)? (1 Viewer)

[Mike Girardi]

I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but...

I saw that Warner will be releasing "House of Wax" in August and went to the IMDb to check out the specs. What I found there has me confused:

> Film negative format (mm/video inches)

> 35 mm

>

> Cinematographic process

> Natural Vision (3-D)

>

> Printed film format

> 35 mm (Side-by-side Anamorphic)

> 35 mm

> 70 mm (blow-up) (1972 re-issue)

>

> Aspect ratio

> 1.37 : 1

> 2.20 : 1 (1972 re-issue)

There is a major difference between 1.37:1 and 2.20:1 - and I assume that many 3D effects would be lost if zoomed, matted, or P&S-ed (even though the disc will be a flat release anyway).

So what is the story here between these two ratios? And which will the DVD be presented in?

I'm sure the terms "side-by-side anamorphic" and "blow-up" are somehow answers in and of themselves, but I'm not familiar with either.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Peter Kline]

It was filmed in 1.37:1. The original version had two synced projectors at the aforementioned ratio. Polarized filters were used in filming and projection. You wore Polaroid glasses in the theatre. The reissue in the 70s had both images printed side by side on 35mm film. A prism was put in front of the projector so both images overlapped and one wore Polaroid glasses as well. I forget the name of the process used in the reissue. I'm sure somebody will remember and post. I saw the 35mm reissue at the Chinese in Hollywood and I believe it was approximately 1.37:1 when projected. I suspect the flat DVD will be 1.37:1.

 

[Patrick McCart]

NaturalVision films are Academy Ratio. Some video editions incorrectly matte some of these films to 1.66:1.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Don't trust the IMDB, the correct projected ratio is Academy 1.37.

I saw HOUSE OF WAX the other night in 35mm dual-projector polarized 3D and it was sensational. It's a shame the DVD won't be in 3D as the film plays better in its intended viewing format.

 

[Thomas Kolla]

I emailed DVD Drive-In, and he told me that HOUSE OF WAX will be full screen on DVD, while the other August 5 titles will be in their original aspect ratios and anamorphic.

 

[RolandL]

I use to have two versions in field sequential 3-D on VHS of House of Wax. One had the bottom of the picture masked to cover the Japanese subtitles. This ruined some of the 3-D effects. The copy that I still have is full screen with the subtitles. The 3-D looks a lot better.

 

[James_Garner]

There is a major difference between 1.37:1 and 2.20:1 - and I assume that many 3D effects would be lost if zoomed, matted, or P&S-ed (even though the disc will be a flat release anyway).

So what is the story here between these two ratios?

The 2.20 image in this case was not used for image-cropping, but rather to fit both the left eye/right eye images side-by-side without having to use two separate reels of film for each eye

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The 2.20 image in this case was not used for image-cropping, but rather to fit both the left eye/right eye images side-by-side without having to use two separate reels of film for each eye

Ah-ha! Now I understand!
Thanks, Jim!
Andre De Toth was only had one eye. I believe that he lost it in WWII. So he couldn't appreciate the 3D effects! Bizarre. He was a very good filmmaker though. He died only recently. He had an extraordinary life - lived it to the full.
As did Vincent Price. One of my all-time heros. Love his movies. Can't wait until August - Price fans dream: HOUSE OF WAX, THE RAVEN, COMEDY OF TERRORS, TOMB OF LIGEIA - AGH!
Gordy

 

[Randy_M]

And, Price fans, don't forget November 4th for Laura !!!

 

[xanjohn]

I know this is an old topic, but I just picked up a copy of the DVD release and was disappointed it was full screen.
Is there a letterbox edition of 1953's "House of Wax"?
Also, I understand that the "bonus" movie, "Mystery of the Wax Museum," is not the best color print available.
Is this 1933 film on DVD elsewhere in upgraded condition?
Thanks in advance for your replies.

 

[John Sparks]

The answer is in the posts above yours!

 

[John Sparks]

No and no!