The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...is done forever.

Discuss films and filmmakers of the 20th century (and even a little of the 19th century). Threads may contain spoilers.
Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
EddieLarkin
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#301 Post by EddieLarkin » Wed May 14, 2014 4:25 pm

tojoed wrote:I find it amazing that he thinks that SC, who own one of the greatest libraries of films in the world, have somehow employed people who don't know the aspect ratios of a particular film.
They're not alone. WB, Fox, Universal, MGM, Paramount and Sony have all made the same mistakes too.

User avatar
captveg
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#302 Post by captveg » Wed May 14, 2014 4:39 pm

tojoed wrote:I find it amazing that he thinks that SC, who own one of the greatest libraries of films in the world,
have somehow employed people who don't know the aspect ratios of a particular film.
A lot of major studios and distributors have been going off incorrect assumptions on ARs from 50s films for a long time. For example, see Warner releasing Dial M for Murder 1.33:1 on DVD just 10 years ago but correcting it to 1.78 on Blu-ray (subtle differences in 1.75 theatrical and 1.78 home video aside).

User avatar
captveg
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#303 Post by captveg » Wed May 14, 2014 4:41 pm

Jonathan S wrote:As probably noted elsewhere, there are a couple of aspect ratio changes in The Life of Pi. They are very brief, and no doubt deliberate, but distracting and to my mind unnecessary. I thought my player or projector had malfunctioned!
Lee did have very specific reasons for those two changes, though.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#304 Post by Bob Furmanek » Wed May 14, 2014 5:01 pm

They almost mastered DIAL M in 1.37:1 for the recent 3-D restoration until I knocked on a few doors. Thankfully, Ned Price is a man with an open mind and a willingness to present a film as the director intended.

I'll share one story which should prove the point.

I was doing work at Universal about 15 years ago and had access to their archival database. I looked up a number of titles that I knew to be composed for widescreen from the mid-1950's. All were designated "Academy" in the OAR column.

I brought this up to the head of preservation and he looked into the matter.

What was NOT indicated in the database is that 1.37:1 is the actual negative image and not the intended projection ratio. However, anybody at the studio (including the mastering department) will look at that listing and make the very same mistake.

Sadly, they continue to do so today. Thankfully, we got to them just in time when they began mastering CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in full-frame.

After all, Jack Arnold did not really intend for audiences to see a telephone pole sticking out from the depths of the Black Lagoon.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#305 Post by Bob Furmanek » Wed May 14, 2014 5:11 pm

tojoed wrote:I'll just say this to make it clear. I was talking about "Inspector Calls", Eddie Larkin chose to bring up
"The Dam Busters" as his example of Studio Canal's errors.
As it happens, I have seen "Dam Busters" in Academy, but he doesn't care.

I find it amazing that he thinks that SC, who own one of the greatest libraries of films in the world,
have somehow employed people who don't know the aspect ratios of a particular film.
But there it is, I don't have anything more to add.
In many cases, people who work at the studios know far less about their history than dedicated scholars and historians who work outside the gates. This happens far more often than most people realize.

Some are receptive to learning (WB, Paramount, MGM) while others are not.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28762
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#306 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 14, 2014 5:13 pm

(Pick one)

[ ] You are a monster and I wish you and your cronies had never found this forum.

[ ] You are an angel and I thank God you and your supporters found this forum.

[ ] You are becoming a nuisance and you and your HTF compatriots are making me hate reading a lot of threads I once enjoyed (And I am most definitely not alone).

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#307 Post by Bob Furmanek » Wed May 14, 2014 5:18 pm

I was just going to post that perhaps this discussion should be moved to the designated aspect ratio topic.

Any moderators in the house?

User avatar
John Hodson
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Near dark satanic mills...
Contact:

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#308 Post by John Hodson » Wed May 14, 2014 5:29 pm

domino harvey wrote:(Pick one)

[ ] You are a monster and I wish you and your cronies had never found this forum.

[ ] You are an angel and I thank God you and your supporters found this forum.

[ ] You are becoming a nuisance and you and your HTF compatriots are making me hate reading a lot of threads I once enjoyed (And I am most definitely not alone).
(Pick one)

[ ] I'd really like to see my movies how the director and the cinematographer intended.

[ ] I really couldn't give a toss - if there's more frame to be seen I want to see all of it! Including the boom mike.

[ ] I saw these films as a kid on TV. If the good Lord had meant films to be in widescreen, he'd wouldn't have invented pan and scan. Or colour. Or widescreen TVs.

User avatar
captveg
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#309 Post by captveg » Wed May 14, 2014 5:50 pm

The jimmies that get rustled on this forum never cease to astound me. :roll:

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14040
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#310 Post by knives » Wed May 14, 2014 5:54 pm

No jimmies, just boredom and exhaustion with the same tired arguments and same very tired trumpeting of self that seems to come up daily now that what's his face decided to come to this forum. It's like having to babysit.

User avatar
GaryC
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#311 Post by GaryC » Wed May 14, 2014 6:03 pm

tojoed wrote:Can you name a Studio Canal film that anyone who is not an HTF member
thinks is incorrect?
Roadgames (1981), cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1. The Australian DVD is in the correct ratio, but is a NTSC-to-PAL standards conversion. I don't have the US DVD from Anchor Bay but that is apparently in the right ratio and is NTSC. It also has extras in common with the Australian disc.

User avatar
Gregory
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#312 Post by Gregory » Wed May 14, 2014 6:17 pm

Bob: thanks for the kind offer. I'll keep it in mind, though I rarely make my way to NYC anymore.

For me, Summertime is a very flawed film when I look at it critically—Hepburn's character is confined to the "pathetic spinster" whose only real source of personal "strength" seems to be her ability to make it impossible for her to have what she not only desires but cannot be fulfilled without: male companionship. But it's a film I always really enjoy watching just the same.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#313 Post by Bob Furmanek » Wed May 14, 2014 6:20 pm

Any time, Gregory.

I'd love to see the print myself. It came from an archive and is in pristine condition.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28762
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#314 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 14, 2014 6:20 pm

And BF and others are encouraged to take to the preexisting Summertime thread to discuss the film as a film, rather than fixating on aspect ratio, so that everyone can get something positive and contributory out of this excursion!

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#315 Post by Bob Furmanek » Wed May 14, 2014 6:27 pm

Sadly, my time on this wonderful site has to be limited but thanks for the kind offer!

User avatar
captveg
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#316 Post by captveg » Wed May 14, 2014 6:29 pm

knives wrote:No jimmies, just boredom and exhaustion with the same tired arguments and same very tired trumpeting of self that seems to come up daily now that what's his face decided to come to this forum. It's like having to babysit.
The only reason you and certain old school members of this forum feel the need to babysit is because you act like preening teen girls who see themselves as superior to the other perceived cliques. If anything is getting old on this forum is the constant whining, moaning, bitching, backhanded insults, straightforward insults, etc. that you, domino and certain others "add" to the discussion in these instances.

And "what's his face"? What, you're such a superior human being that names are beneath you?

You know what mature adults do when they don't care to participate in a conversation? They go do something else with their time. For example, there's only, oh I don't know, about 10 billion threads on the various home video forums that I've done that with.

Moving the comments to a more appropriate thread is of course understandable, so I have no problem with a little "let's stay on topic" house cleaning when that comes up. But once here the posts in this thread are easily bypassed and ignored if wanted, so I see no problem with some of us wanting to continue to have the conversation without comments that consist of nothing more of "I hate this conversation, and don't like those of you that continue to have it!"

User avatar
movielocke
Posts: 2336
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Studio Canal/Kinowelt/Optimum

#317 Post by movielocke » Wed May 14, 2014 6:41 pm

Memory is a tricky thing. I saw the star wars films on video dozens of times each, but never saw any of them on film. I saw the the special editions in theatres either once or twice in 1998, depending on which one it was. If you'd asked me a week after I saw the films to describe the shape of the screen I'd have said, "a rectangle, like TV, but BIG, and SURROUND SOUND!" (I was very impressed with surround sound then, having just discovered LD and wishing I could afford surround sound and a big screen tv). The point is that my memory was reshaped by the dozens of TV viewings that preceded it, and I still remember those screenings as being 'boxy' not widescreen. I didn't even realize widescreen was a thing until a year or so later.

Of course there's also a good chance that particular shitty mall-tiplex was showing everything in 2:1 rather than the right ratio .

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Posts: 5890
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...again.

#318 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed May 14, 2014 6:45 pm

That's it. This thread is done. No more.

Locked