It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 8:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
manicsounds wrote:

wrong aspect ratio...


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 9:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:20 am
Location: Guernsey
EddieLarkin wrote:
wrong aspect ratio...


Fearing I might be lighting the blue touch paper, but really? In 1954?

I'm not even remotely an expert on this, but I would have thought Academy would still be the norm at that point in the UK. Or was this film a special case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 9:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
Britain was definitely the quickest European country to take up widescreen, only very shortly after the US. Widescreen films first appeared in the UK in May 1953 (although these were 1.37:1 films incorrectly matted). The British studios started switching over in June/July 1953, and the first proper British widescreen films started playing at the start of 1954.

In December 1953 British Lion stated they had been shooting their films at 1.80:1 (they had changed to 1.65:1 by March 1954). They did not specify when they made the switch but it would likely be June/July '53 along with all the other studios. An Inspector Calls was completed by Nov 1953. Really though, the film speaks for itself. Note the caps in the review, and this clip (especially 3:31).

The Belles of St Trinian's is also widescreen, though I'm led to believe the new Blu-ray is thankfully 1.66:1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
I wonder if director Guy Hamilton was consulted? He's still around and displayed a remarkable recollection of technical details in the THE THIRD MAN commentary he did a few years back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 5:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England
Say what you like about Studio Canal, I've never known them to release a film in the wrong aspect ratio.
Cue that new band, Bob Furmanek and the Tradepapers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 5:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
And I've known them to be one of the very worst offenders. What's your point?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 5:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River
Be very afraid. Looks like the sun has really come up on Le Jour se leve. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/8 ... L1500_.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England
EddieLarkin wrote:
And I've known them to be one of the very worst offenders. What's your point?

My point is that Inspector Calls is correct.
They are only "worst offenders" in your world, no-one elses.
Can you name a Studio Canal film that anyone who is not an HTF member
thinks is incorrect?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 5:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
Well of course it's "correct" if your only criteria for whether it is correct or not is that SC released it. You'll apparently take their word for it, whilst I consider the facts. You'll blithely dismiss historical documentation simply because you don't like what it says, whilst providing nothing to counter it.

As for SC releasing a film that everyone believes to be incorrect, I propose 1955's The Dam Busters. I don't believe it's received any discussion here, but a contemporary newsreel of the premiere is available showing it being advertised in widescreen. Of course, SC released it in 1.33:1.

Or you can go back through this thread to find mention of their release of Seven Days to Noon; a film from 1950 that they actually did release in widescreen... *slow clap*

It'd take me all day to list all of the other mistakes and idiotic decisions SC have made outside of ARs; this thread is for the most part negative criticism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am
It's only "correct" to some because that's how the film has been seen for the past fifty years on 4 x 3 televisions and home video. Let's not forget 16mm library and school screenings plus sloppy repertory bookings from operators who didn't know better.

However, if you go back to the original release and how the film was composed by the filmmaker for theatrical release, widescreen is indeed correct.

Personally, I prefer to see how the director framed their movie to look in a movie theatre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am
That's cool Gregory, it's all good!

As I have said to our good friend Jeff Wells, there has been a great deal of inconsistency with the presentation of vintage films in 35mm over the past four decades. Having been a part of the New York revival scene in the 70's and 80's, I speak from experience.

More often than not, post-1953 films were presented full-frame when they were intended for widescreen. Even 1.37:1 presentations were not optimum as the aperture plates were usually not filed to SMPTE specs and the lenses did not match.

It continues to this day. This image is from the "hallowed" booth of the Film Forum and was taken in 2013.

'Nuff said!

Incidentally, if you're in the New York area and would like to see an original 35mm dye-transfer Technicolor print of SUMMERTIME in the proper aspect ratio, send me a message and I can arrange that for you.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 1:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England
I've seen all these movies you're talking about in cinemas in England, that's why I believe them to be correct.
You say you consider "the facts" Eddie, but my movie going experience seems to mean nothing to you.
You were the same in regard to "Lord of the Flies", and I was right and you were wrong.

You don't consider the facts, you take your information from American trade papers. Studio Canal have released these films as they were exhibited in their country of origin, and that is a fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 1:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
tojoed wrote:
I've seen all these movies you're talking about in cinemas in England, that's why I believe them to be correct.
You say you consider "the facts" Eddie, but my movie going experience seems to mean nothing to you.

Unless your cinema going experience dates back to 1954, then yes it does mean nothing to me. That goes for anyone.

tojoed wrote:
You don't consider the facts, you take your information from American trade papers. Studio Canal have released these films as they were exhibited in their country of origin, and that is a fact.

I can dismiss your nonsense without even resorting to documentation, British or American. The below image is from the world premiere of The Dam Busters in London, showing that it will be seen in Metroscope:

Image

You can see the same in this video taken from the premiere, where Princess Margaret and many veterans of the war have turned out to watch the film, in widescreen. What's so important about your personal movie going experience that it trumps video footage of the premiere?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 1:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am
There is no shortage of UK documents in my widescreen articles as well.

Some prefer to keep their head in the sand, I suppose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England
No, my head was looking at the screen. My movie going experience goes back to about 1960, but I no longer wish to share it with widescreen fetishists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
As I've said elsewhere, in cases where the aspect ratio is in substantial dispute, it's preferable for companies to present the film at both ratios. Although actually, presenting a film open matte is accomplishing just this. (I recently watched Criterion's Riot in Cell Block 11 zoomed in to a 1.66:1 ratio through my projector and it looked stellar. I know this technically isn't taking full advantage of all 1080 pixels, but it never felt to me like the PQ was taking a hit.) If you own a projector and can change the masking to be whatever you like, then there's really no use in complaining about a company presenting a film open matte. And if you don't own equipment that can do this, then you don't actually care about watching films as their directors intended for them to be seen. And that is a fact!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm
I'll never understand the butthurt over seeing one's previous notions re: ARs being put into question by plain visual evidence like the Dam Busters Preimier photo above, LOL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
swo17 wrote:
As I've said elsewhere, in cases where the aspect ratio is in substantial dispute, it's preferable for companies to present the film at both ratios. Although actually, presenting a film open matte is accomplishing just this. (I recently watched Criterion's Riot in Cell Block 11 zoomed in to a 1.66:1 ratio through my projector and it looked stellar. I know this technically isn't taking full advantage of all 1080 pixels, but it never felt to me like the PQ was taking a hit.) If you own a projector and can change the masking to be whatever you like, then there's really no use in complaining about a company presenting a film open matte. And if you don't own equipment that can do this, then you don't actually care about watching films as their directors intended for them to be seen. And that is a fact!

It's not like anyone is making a case for An Inspector Calls or The Dam Busters in 1.33:1, like with Magnificent Obsession or Touch of Evil. The only reason that there is any dispute is because StudioCanal keep releasing them that way, which evidently is enough for some people. I'm quite sure this is borne out of SC's own ignorance, rather than them being aware of the facts and choosing to ignore them.

I'll grant you that there are ways to overcome the issue, and I take advantage of them frequently (assuming the 1.33:1 version available is actually showing enough to be accurately cropped, which isn't always the case). But I am a big stickler for image quality and I can see the image taking a hit. And I don't really agree that someone who doesn't have space for a projector and/or the $500 for an Oppo Blu-ray player simply doesn't care enough about seeing the director's intended ratio.

And what about people going in blind, who simply don't know what the facts are, and so watch the films over and over in 1.33:1? Years later those same people are the ones demanding that a new release is also 1.33:1 because that's what they're used to.


Last edited by EddieLarkin on Wed May 14, 2014 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:20 pm 

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:14 pm
tojoed wrote:
No, my head was looking at the screen. My movie going experience goes back to about 1960, but I no longer wish to share it with widescreen fetishists.

It's always dangerous to wade into these debates, but as someone who does not consider himself a "widescreen fetishist":

The moviegoing experience can be useful, but 50-year-old personal recollections without concrete arguments or observations are far superceded by extensive documentation and photo evidence.

If you saw The Dam Busters in 1.33 — even if you liked it in 1.33 — that is not evidence that you saw the film in the correct, intended ratio. It is evidence that you saw and liked the film in 1.33:1. Of course, if you have arguments for why your experience is equally or greater evidence for the AR, I'm all ears, but short of major disparity in framing quality or an unusual detail of the presentation, it's very hard to top that photo.

And I'll second eddielarkin — not only is zooming the picture to 1.66:1 not necessarily an accurate means of reframing, the loss in picture quality is immediately noticeable to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
WorstFella wrote:
If you saw The Dam Busters in 1.33...that is not evidence that you saw the film in the correct, intended ratio.

If that isn't evidence, then how is a picture showing that the film was shown in widescreen once evidence?

Quote:
And I'll second eddielarkin — not only is zooming the picture to 1.66:1 not necessarily an accurate means of reframing, the loss in picture quality is immediately noticeable to me.

Even on a well encoded Blu-ray, on a reasonably sized screen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:35 pm 

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:14 pm
swo17 wrote:
WorstFella wrote:
If you saw The Dam Busters in 1.33...that is not evidence that you saw the film in the correct, intended ratio.

If that isn't evidence, then how is a picture showing that the film was shown in widescreen once evidence?

Premiere status helps a lot — it's far likelier that more care was taken to project the film correctly at its premiere than a screening six years into its run (though I don't know the details of the screening tojoed saw in 1960).

Quote:
Quote:
And I'll second eddielarkin — not only is zooming the picture to 1.66:1 not necessarily an accurate means of reframing, the loss in picture quality is immediately noticeable to me.

Even on a well encoded Blu-ray, on a reasonably sized screen?

Yes, absolutely. It's not that it looks dreadful, of course, and it's an interesting way to watch the film in a different AR in the worst case scenario. But a separate encode for a different AR is a noticeably better and far preferable solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
WorstFella wrote:
It's always dangerous to wade into these debates, but as someone who does not consider himself a "widescreen fetishist"
You're not the only one. The whole exercise is a bit ridiculous, but if I had to choose one ratio that I feel gives the best advantages to general composition, I'd go with 1.37:1. The fact remains though that 1.37:1 was for the most part abandoned in the 50s, and director's intentions should be honoured. That and 1.37:1 looks daft when the film was actually composed wide.
swo17 wrote:
If that isn't evidence, then how is a picture showing that the film was shown in widescreen once evidence?
Because the film makers had a hand in that presentation, and projectionists would be correctly instructed even if they weren't. As WorstFella says, it was a contemporary engagement. This is not the same for repertory screenings, home video releases, etc. It surely doesn't come as a surprise that many projectionists, without instruction from the film makers or contemporary trades, showed these films open matte? After all, that's how they look on the print.
Quote:
Even on a well encoded Blu-ray, on a reasonably sized screen?
I certainly notice, yes. Obviously there are degrees. A bad Blu-ray looks even worse (try Johnny Guitar zoomed; yuck!), and a perfect Blu-ray no longer looks perfect. But again, I think what's more important are the many viewers who do care about seeing the director's intent, but don't know about the history, the documentation, the debates etc. They want to watch the film the right way, but they're watching it wrong through no fault of their own, and don't know it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Near dark satanic mills...
tojoed wrote:
EddieLarkin wrote:
And I've known them to be one of the very worst offenders. What's your point?

My point is that Inspector Calls is correct.
They are only "worst offenders" in your world, no-one elses.
Can you name a Studio Canal film that anyone who is not an HTF member
thinks is incorrect?

Robbery shouldn't be 1.33:1, their initial release of Seven Days to Noon was at 1.66:1 before they were called out and - to their credit - corrected it, The Long, The Short & The Tall is 1.33:1 as is Yangtse Incident - save 'Seven Days', these were all shot wide, there is quite a list...


Last edited by John Hodson on Wed May 14, 2014 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Near dark satanic mills...
tojoed wrote:
As it happens, I have seen "Dam Busters" in Academy, but he doesn't care.

As have I. It's clearly composed wide.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection