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

[tenia]

I think that image pretty much sums up the horrifying indifference of the general public to original aspect ratios, not to mention their visual illiteracy.

I'm quite sure it also sums up the level of competence needed for doing this kind of flyer (because obviously you can respect OAR by putting your tablet in Landscape mode).

[Mr Sausage]

Even weirder, the OAR isn't changed to fullscreen when you keep the device upright, it just becomes a lot smaller with large black areas on the top and bottom.

[David M.]

Am I the only one who doesn't know anyone who watches films on their telephone?

TV shows on long commutes I could buy, in a stretch, but actual films?

[domino harvey]

Go on one morning commute 'round the DC Metro area and you can check it off your bucket list within minutes of boarding. Soderbergh talked about the guy on the plane who would just fast forward through the "story" parts of an action movie to get to the action scenes in his state of the cinema speech from last year

[Drucker]

I see people on NJ Transit doing it every day. The first time I saw it, it was some guy watching the Karate Kid remake on his iPad. Personally, I like to just zone out and relax or read nonfiction during my commute. The idea that watching a movie like the Karate Kid remake is preferable to some over just relaxing on a very quiet train still makes me wonder.

[TMDaines]

Am I the only one who doesn't know anyone who watches films on their telephone?

TV shows on long commutes I could buy, in a stretch, but actual films?

I watch stuff on my iPad Air when flying or on a long, quiet train journey in Poland or something, but watching on a phone doesn't appeal in the slightest. Can't imagine wanting to watch on either on a crowded commute.

Putting stuff on my iPhone to be AirPlayed to a big screen is another matter though.

[FrauBlucher]

I can't wait to catch some schmuck watching Lawrence of Arabia on his phone.

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm pleased to announce that my new article, THE FIRST YEAR OF WIDESCREEN PRODUCTION, is now on our website. It covers every feature - and most of the live action shorts - that were composed for widescreen in 1953. Hopefully, it will help to dispel many of the myths associated with this era.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first- ... widescreen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article took nearly a year to put together with a great deal of research and fact-checking in order to insure accuracy. I hope that you enjoy it.

Please share the article so that more people will understand this turbulent period of transition within the industry.

Thank you very much!

[Bob Furmanek]

There were 187 widescreen films produced in 1953 and 101 are available on either DVD or Blu-ray.

As of today, only 31 have been released in the correct aspect ratio.

For the complete list, please read: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/1953-wides ... vd-blu-ray" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gregory]

Second time this week I've opened the thread and found links and plugs. This is a discussion forum, not a social media site for cross-promotion. I'm sure that anyone who wants the Furmanek view of what constitutes "myths" and "director-intended aspect ratios" can simply bookmark the site to check for all the latest updates about this much-neglected issue. Or if you want to discuss something, surely there's a better way to do it. Just my two cents.

[domino harvey]

At least he's gotten the hint to stop making new threads for each of his posts

[Drucker]

"Correct" aspect ratio is also mis-leading. If you do read the link, the doesn't count films released in 1.78 that should be 1.85. Technically accurate, but a bit misleading considering the context usually assumed.

[swo17]

He's defining OAR as a ratio at which there is documentation that the film was once shown. However, this isn't necessarily definitive evidence--it doesn't preclude there having been legitimate showings at alternate ratios, or the director having perhaps preferred an alternate ratio. Note for instance that he patly calls Criterion's Magnificent Obsession one of the small number of 1953 films that's available in the correct ratio, without acknowledging that there is substantial debate on this matter.

[domino harvey]

But it's

[Drucker]

Dom's also using an old as hell Mozilla for that second capture, laugh out loud.

[zedz]

I have to say that the way the top on that woman with her back to us in the first capture is convulsing is hypnotically disturbing.

[Michael Kerpan]

I have to say that the way the top on that woman with her back to us in the first capture is convulsing is hypnotically disturbing.

The other woman must be talking so fast and furious that it is creating a breeze.

[EddieLarkin]

He's defining OAR as a ratio at which there is documentation that the film was once shown.

This isn't the case at all. Bob is defining OAR by looking at when a studio announced their intention to move to sole widescreen production (usually announcing a "house ratio" at the same time), and when a particular film started shooting. Using documentation that details what ratio a film was shown at can help, but is merely supportive evidence, and cannot be relied upon all the time.

For instance, it is documented that From Here to Eternity was released after Columbia switched over to widescreen, and it is also documented that it premiered in 1.85:1. Indeed, it was probably shown at all large engagements in some form of widescreen, and plenty of small engagements too. And yet:



The film was composed 1.37:1, and you won't find Bob or me or anyone else who argues on his side of the debate calling for it to be released 1.85:1 on Blu-ray (I wonder if the Academy voters minded?). If you read his new article, you'll find an explanation for how a film like FHtE is at odds with the supporting documentation, but not the primary:

When theaters began the conversion to widescreen presentation in May of 1953, there was a backlog of nearly 200 standard ratio features at the studios. Exhibitors were spending money to install new screens and wanted to fill them so many 1.37 features were incorrectly shown wide throughout the rest of the year. They include Shane, Thunder Bay, It Came from Outer Space, Young Bess, Fort Ti, The Charge at Feather River, The Band Wagon, From Here to Eternity, The Big Heat, Mogambo, All the Brothers Were Valiant, Sangaree, Scared Stiff, The Caddy, War of the Worlds, White Witch Doctor, Island in the Sky, Blowing Wild, Calamity Jane and many more.

Calamity Jane was held over all the way until November '53, and was probably seen in some form of widescreen by the majority of cinema goers, but it remains a 1.37:1 film and should only ever be released at that ratio on home video.

What is important is when a film started shooting, and when the studio switched. All of the above quoted films were released during the widescreen era in widescreen, but they started shooting in the "1.37:1 era". The documentation can sometimes be contradictory; sorting out which documentation is relevant and which isn't is what is critical here.

The most important "documentation" though is obviously the film itself. Go look at any of the above films, look at the caps I've posted, you won't find that any of those films work in widescreen (at least not entirely). Look at films made after the switch over though, and you should notice a change. Suddenly, actors heads never stray into the upper regions of the frame, at least not significantly. You won't find a shot like the above caps in Magnificent Obsession, not even close. I know that doesn't settle the debate on that particular film, I'm just trying to make clear the methodology used to determine what the OAR is. It is not just a case of looking at a poster that says "in WIDESCREEN" on it, or looking at a projectionist instruction that says "1.85:1".

[domino harvey]

There is more to composition and framing than "head room," and many many many pre-1953 studio era Hollywood films exhibit "excessive head room" using the limited and silly perimeters that some of the Studio-mandated Ratio fascists keep harping on in place of any actual sense of what mise-en-scene encompasses. I think BF's documentation is valuable and has its worth but his expertise is seemingly devoid of any actual artistic appreciation of his subject. I am no amateur in the field of film either, though I don't name drop my connections or accomplishments to try to cut off oppositional informed opinions. You guys are posting on a forum shared by experts and laymen who all share a love of cinema in common. If you want blind fawning and head-nodding, go back to the comforting and unquestioning womb of HTF. Everyone and I mean absolutely everyone can and will be called to the floor here and it's part of what makes us the best online venue for indightful discussion of film.

[EddieLarkin]

I chose From Here to Eternity to demonstrate my point because I watched it only a few days ago. The majority of the film could actually work in say 1.66:1, because yes you're right, 1.37:1 films tended to have plenty of "head room". Most 1.37:1 films can "work" at 1.66:1 (this is how exhibitors in 1953 got away with presenting them as such!), but never entirely; my caps demonstrate this, but they were actually quite hard to find! I had to rip them from the disc because all caps taken at Blu-ray.com, DVDBeaver and caps-a-holic actually show a good deal of head room at all times, and thus were not useful to make my point.

All 1.37:1 films, including Sirk's have some shots that show clearly and without room for debate that the film can only work at 1.37:1, at least in its entirety. All of his films Taza, Son of Cochise onwards won't have these telling shots because as the primary documentation shows, they were composed for widescreen. His last 1.37:1 film, All I Desire, definitely does though it too was probably shown in widescreen on original run. Let me make that clear: despite All I Desire, Taza, Son of Cochise and Magnificent Obsession being released in widescreen, we ratio fascists only want the latter two shown that way today. Again, the methodology used to determine this is more precise than what has been claimed by swo.

[EddieLarkin]

You guys are posting on a forum shared by experts and laymen who all share a love of cinema in common. If you want blind fawning and head-nodding, go back to the comforting and unquestioning womb of HTF. Everyone and I mean absolutely everyone can and will be called to the floor here and it's part of what makes us the best online venue for indightful discussion of film.

And it's what I like about this place. But how could you even have a debate on this subject if I and Bob and a few others didn't post? Then CF would be the place of head-nodding. And I'm not sure how you've got the impression that I "want" unquestioning agreement on this issue. I like the debates and don't get angry or impassioned when posting.

[swo17]

I was being intentionally vague about the particulars, and I suppose I was imprecise as a result, but my point remains that you still aren't necessarily getting a complete picture from consulting the trades for production dates and so forth.

As for consulting the film itself, headroom is too subjective a measure and screenshots can be too easily cherry picked to support one's bias. I've found the most compelling evidence comes from reviewing the film in motion, particularly during dynamic scenes where the interplay between framing of the camera and blocking of the actors makes it apparent which information was considered essential to be contained in the frame.

[EddieLarkin]

Well then we're in agreement swo; as I say above, I picked FHtE to make my point because I had just recently watched it in its entirety. Most of the film could work at 1.66:1 (indeed, the opening and ending titles are positioned as if it was a widescreen film, the lab knowing at that point it was going to be exhibited incorrectly), but plenty of it can only work at 1.37:1. I don't believe that's the case at all for Magnificent Obsession, which works fine at 2.00:1 throughout. But all of this is down to personal opinion; dom's artistic appreciation of the 1.37:1 version of the film is no more valid than my artistic appreciation of the 2.00:1 version (or my "anti-appreciation" of the ridiculous looking 1.37:1 version). The major difference is, all of the documentation falls on the 2.00:1 side of the debate. Should the film get a dual AR release? Maybe, but then where do you draw the line? Why should MO get a dual AR release and not There's Always Tomorrow?

[domino harvey]

But all of this is down to personal opinion; dom's artistic appreciation of the 1.37:1 version of the film is no more valid than my artistic appreciation of the 2.00:1 version (or my "anti-appreciation" of the ridiculous looking 1.37:1 version). The major difference is, all of the documentation falls on the 2.00:1 side of the debate.

That's not true though, and is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about with regards to underselling the complexities of what you're rendering down and simplifying into anti-intellectual nothingness. Practical knowledge of film, be it from academic experience or as a studied hobby/interest, isn't democratic. Everyone doesn't possess it innately, and it's laughable to equate two arguments of preference as equal by the sole virtue that they were expressed.

[EddieLarkin]

I have a practical knowledge of film from studying it as a hobby thanks. And no, I'm not equating watching DVDs as studying. I imagine Bob and Robert Harris and a number of others from HTF would also believe they have a practical knowledge of film. You might feel that your knowledge of film is of a higher intellectual level, though I'm sure there are a number of film scholars who you feel have attained an even greater understanding than yourself, who would support 2.00:1 for Magnificent Obsession and make a very detailed intellectual argument for it. Bordwell at least seems to suggest 1.85:1 is fine for the film. Tag was happy to support 1.66:1 as the correct ratio for Il generale della Rovere despite there being no actual documentation for this, and all DVD/Blu-ray releases being 1.33:1. My point being, not all "intellectuals" feel the same way on this issue, so what use are they? The documentation on the other hand is unbiased.