What's new

RICK BOND

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
921
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
RICK
I got this Hammer Film delivered from Amazon early this morning ! :) It looks Great ! ;)
DSC00425.JPG
 
Last edited:

Randy Korstick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
5,163
Just wondering, is the 1.66 ratio what was seen in UK theaters, and the 1.85 what was seen in the US? Looking at the movie page of this title on Blu-ray.com they have the technical details for this at 1.75:1...not sure why.
With a few rare exceptions:
1.66:1 was used in the US in 1953 and early 1954 and then replaced with 1.85:1
1.66:1 was used in the UK from 1953 to early 1958 and then replaced with 1.75:1. There were some UK films using 1.75:1 in 1956 and 57.
Many Blu Ray and DVD label perpetuate the myth that 1.66:1 was always used on European films mainly because it is a safer ratio to avoid complaints from viewers not understanding how ratios work, what was blocked off during filming and what was intended to be seen.
 

RICK BOND

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
921
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
RICK
Wait a minute! Mine arrived yesterday from Bullmoose, but where did those cards with the older artwork come from? Were they in your disc box?
I have the reversable sleeve, but no cards.
I do Custom printing and add mini posters that I have to all my Bluray Movies in my collection. I like to make them Special. I :emoji_heart: my Movies ! It's a Hobby :)
 

TallPaulInKy

Agent
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
45
Real Name
Paul W Urbahns
[QUOTE="Randy Korstick]
With a few rare exceptions:
1.66:1 was used in the US in 1953 and early 1954 and then replaced with 1.85:1
1.66:1 was used in the UK from 1953 to early 1958 and then replaced with 1.75:1. There were some UK films using 1.75:1 in 1956 and 57. [/QUOTE]

The UK Blue Ray version I have of "Curse" was issued in the Academy Format 1:37:1 and says that is the original format. I haven't listened to the commentary track for a while, but I seem to remember Hammer Historian Marcus Hern when speaking of Horror of Dracula said it was filmed "Hard Matted in the camera" and then cropped in the lab for release. Maybe this is the same situation. The Curse BR says 1:37:1 was it's original format. But the two UK restored versions (2007 and 2012) of Horror of Dracula (aka Dracula in the UK) was issued apparently at 1:66:1..probably the way it was shot.

Though the aspect ratios on the announcement at the top of this thread say the disk contains 1:85:1 and 1:66:1 versions, the descriptions says, " Newly Remastered 1.37:1 Open Matte version of feature."
Hi Def Digest says the 1:37 version is on the Bonus disk. So this two disk set will have three versions of the film.. Aspect Ratio(s):1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1.
 
Last edited:

Billy Batson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
3,800
Location
London
Real Name
Alan
The fifties was certainly the decade for all sorts of screen shapes. I would have thought that 1:66 & 1:85 was all we needed, but after all the work was done, Warner saw the whole frame, including the parts of the picture that were blanked off for 1:66 & 1:85 & must have decided that the whole frame was worth looking at, & I'm sure some people will prefer it. I'm thinking it's 1:66 for me.
 

Billy Batson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
3,800
Location
London
Real Name
Alan
Well that makes a lot more sense than the 22nd. Oo, is there an outside chance of it arriving in the UK in time for Christmas?

...but every chance of a Curse Of Frankenstein/Revenge Of Frankenstein double-bill on New Years Eve (I know how to party!).
 
Last edited:

TallPaulInKy

Agent
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
45
Real Name
Paul W Urbahns
[QUOTE="Billy Batson]
The fifties was certainly the decade for all sorts of screen shapes....but after all the work was done, Warner saw the whole frame, including the parts of the picture that were blanked off for 1:66 & 1:85 & must have decided that the whole frame was worth looking at...[/QUOTE]

According to IMDB the 1.37 : 1 (original & negative ratio / alternative theatrical ratio) so it was issued that way, probably in the UK where television was not that big a threat to theaters and they still had a lot of mom and pop (locally owned) theaters at that time.
1.66 : 1 (UK theatrical ratio) and 1.85 : 1 (US theatrical ratio)
Personally, I want to see the whole picture so I'm glad they are including the 1:37 version.

But honestly, I'll probably be buying it for the bonus features. I do wish they had included the excellent Marcus Hern and Jonathan Rigby UK commentary track as they talk about everyone in the film, including non credited actors.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
13,989
Real Name
Robert Harris
Once again, as to “widescreen” aspect ratios, and reading most anything, anywhere regarding the era. Far too many writers get it wrong.

Virtually every non-scope film in the ‘50s was shot and printed 1.37. In earlier decades, it was 1.33 or 1.37 unmatted. GWTW was not shot 1.37. The image was higher.

So yes, one can read that a certain film was “originally” 1.37, and would have been printed that way. It may not have been seen that way. Everything had to be adaptable for broadcast.

As to theatrical screenings, aspect ratios were generally respected, where possible, and recommendations followed, based upon a theater’s ability to do so.

Projected imagery looked nothing like what we see, when aspect ratios are discussed today.

Generally, the actual projected image, was an inverted trapezoid, probably losing 25% of the image. Rectangles, of any aspect ratio were a rarity.
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
8,804
Real Name
Rick
Well that makes a lot more sense than the 22nd. Oo, is there an outside chance of it arriving in the UK in time for Christmas?

...but every chance of a Curse Of Frankenstein/Revenge Of Frankenstein double-bill on New Years Eve (I know how to party!).

One is from Warner Bros, the other from Sony. So...no.
 

TallPaulInKy

Agent
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
45
Real Name
Paul W Urbahns
[QUOTE="Robert Harris, ]
As to theatrical screenings, aspect ratios were generally respected, where possible, and recommendations followed, based upon a theater’s ability to do so.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, in the 60s I worked at a local theater chain with three downtown houses. Two had cinemascope styled screens, one "The Orpheum" was a large cracker box like building (no balcony) with no place to widen the screen so it was regular widescreen. Whenever they showed a cinemascope picture it looked like old TV showings with black bands at the top and bottom. Instead of the picture getting bigger, it shrunk! Needless to say the management tried to show mostly movies in regular scope there.

The Orpheum (I'm speaking of) opened on the night of March 20, 1916 with the movie “Peggy” and a live orchestra accompanying the silent film.
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,496
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
IMDb is full of errors and should not be taken as a definitive source, especially as regards aspect ratios. The UK was not slow to adopt widescreen and only a minority of cinemas would have shown it in Academy format 1.37:1 in 1957. I don't know how many times it has to be said but 1.66:1 was not as prevalent in the UK as is often alleged. Interestingly when CURSE was in production Kine Weekly had it listed as being shot in Hammerscope. Now that may have been an error or Hammer may have originally intended it to be in 2.35:1. Several other Hammer films at that time were in Hammerscope. The film was likely intended to be shown in UK cinemas at 1.75:1 with a smaller number of cinemas showing it 1.66:1.
 

Billy Batson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
3,800
Location
London
Real Name
Alan
One is from Warner Bros, the other from Sony. So...no.

Ha, yes! I already have the Indicator Sony restoration of Revenge & I haven't looked at it yet, so now I'm going to wait for Curse & see them in order as a double-bill.
 

aPhil

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
777
Location
North Carolina
Real Name
Phil Smoot
[/QUOTE]
The UK Blue Ray version I have of "Curse" was issued in the Academy Format 1:37:1 and says that is the original format. I haven't listened to the commentary track for a while, but I seem to remember Hammer Historian Marcus Hern when speaking of Horror of Dracula said it was filmed "Hard Matted in the camera" and then cropped in the lab for release.
[/QUOTE]


I often hear this “hard matted in the camera” thing. In all my years of working with Arriflex, Mitchell, Panavision, and MovieCam 35mm cameras, I never saw a “hard matte in the camera.” If anyone has used a 35mm motion picture camera with a 1.66-to-1 hard matte in the camera, I would like to know your experience.

We framed the image with a marked ground glass (sometimes with markings for both 1.85 & TV safe) that we saw through the viewfinder --
I never had nor have I seen a hard matte in the camera.
 

TallPaulInKy

Agent
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
45
Real Name
Paul W Urbahns
I never saw a “hard matte in the camera.” ...We framed the image with a marked ground glass (sometimes with markings for both 1.85 & TV safe) that we saw through the viewfinder --

I'm sure that's what the commentator means. Since the British restorations are 1.37 : 1 Format, there is no question that is how it was originally filmed. The cameraman probably ensured the action takes place within the area to be used by the lab to make distribution prints.
 

aPhil

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
777
Location
North Carolina
Real Name
Phil Smoot
I'm sure that's what the commentator means. Since the British restorations are 1.37 : 1 Format, there is no question that is how it was originally filmed. The cameraman probably ensured the action takes place within the area to be used by the lab to make distribution prints.

In reference to Post Number 26 above
(“. . .but I seem to remember Hammer Historian Marcus Hern when speaking of Horror of Dracula said it was filmed "Hard Matted in the camera" and then cropped in the lab for release . . . “,
that is not what the commentator means -- or, at least, not what he says --
The use of a marked viewfinder for framing is not the same thing as “hard matted in the camera."

Also, please note that not talking about The Curse of Frankenstein (which I suppose we should be doing here, but the hard-matte thing came up here so I made my remark in Post 37 above). Again, I’ve never seen a “hard-matte” in the camera for 1.66 or 1.75 or 1.85 etc.
 

Billy Batson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
3,800
Location
London
Real Name
Alan
I often hear this “hard matted in the camera” thing. In all my years of working with Arriflex, Mitchell, Panavision, and MovieCam 35mm cameras, I never saw a “hard matte in the camera.” If anyone has used a 35mm motion picture camera with a 1.66-to-1 hard matte in the camera, I would like to know your experience.
[/QUOTE]

In all the years I worked in a film laboratory & then as a Telecine Colourist, I only ever came across one 35mm feature that was hard matted in camera, & that was when I was transfering some rushes of a French film. I'd think hard matted in camera must be a rare animal.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
347,083
Messages
4,801,904
Members
141,992
Latest member
MarvelManiac68
Top