647 On the Waterfront
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
For an easy comparison I put up images comparing the various aspect ratios for certain scenes on Facebook, which allows you to jump between them quickly. It should be public so you don't need an account to look.
- Fred Holywell
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:45 pm
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
Still seems like over-kill. Does Criterion explain why they (not Columbia) chose to offer three different aspect ratios on this DVD/BluRay?Criterion then goes over the various aspect ratios the film has been shown in. The interesting 5-minute feature gives a brief history of the widescreen format and why Columbia chose to show the film (and others) theatrically in various ratios. It then compares many sequences between the three provided here (1.33:1, 1.66:1, and 1.85:1) and points out the advantages and disadvantages.
- Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
There is a special feature dedicated to just that issue. I also have a foggy notion that they mention there was heated discussion about it in their office amongst employees. (Wexner talk?)Fred Holywell wrote:Still seems like over-kill. Does Criterion explain why they (not Columbia) chose to offer three different aspect ratios on this DVD/BluRay?Criterion then goes over the various aspect ratios the film has been shown in. The interesting 5-minute feature gives a brief history of the widescreen format and why Columbia chose to show the film (and others) theatrically in various ratios. It then compares many sequences between the three provided here (1.33:1, 1.66:1, and 1.85:1) and points out the advantages and disadvantages.
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
The issue is that they don't know which ratio was preferred by either Kaufman or Kazan, and it's also hard to tell by framing since the film was obviously framed for at least both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1, which they breakdown in the feature. It's also suspected that 1.66:1 may have been considered while framing shots as well since the framing in this ratio looks excellent. I think they see the 1.66:1 as an excellent compromise but at the end state they'll leave it for the viewer to decide.Fred Holywell wrote: Still seems like over-kill. Does Criterion explain why they (not Columbia) chose to offer three different aspect ratios on this DVD/BluRay?
- ShellOilJunior
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:17 am
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
I've only seen the film in 1.33:1 so I'm glad they included 2 more options. I'm anxious to see it in 1.66:1.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
Chris - your review is excellent, and I love the selection of screenshots for easy comparison between the ratios. Am I alone in thinking that 1.33:1 looks the best? I'm not usually someone who's of that opinion regarding headspace (2.35:1 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days for life), but the compositions in this film seem to really benefit from the breathing room.
- Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
- gcgiles1dollarbin
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
Nope. I agree. The film's protagonist is so boxed in, that I think the squarer look even works thematically; I think the difference is most striking where his arms are stretched along the back of a pew--the body's composition looks less like a horizontal line in 1.33:1 and more like a cross thanks to the head room, perhaps echoing the diminutive cross on the wall-mounted font in the background. (I'm not saying he's a blatantly allegorical Christ-on-a-cross, but the evocation may still be there.)mfunk9786 wrote:Am I alone in thinking that 1.33:1 looks the best?
- Fred Holywell
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:45 pm
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
DVD Savant hasn't posted his review yet, but here are some interesting comments he made on the ar situation, when reviewing the Sony disc back in 2001.
The film looks fine but the chosen aspect ratio is 1:37 flat. I've seen the picture at festivals, at the very formal Academy and at UCLA, and it's always projected at 1:85 widescreen. The titles are composed in horizontal blocks of text. In 16mm flat prints, microphones frequently intruded into the upper frame, especially in the scene of the interrupted meeting in the church. Those shots must have been slightly blown up here. The movie looks much better when matted to widescreen, with tighter compositions.
- gcgiles1dollarbin
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
What does Glenn Erickson know! Interesting addition to the conversation, though. Thanks for quoting.Fred Holywell wrote:DVD Savant hasn't posted his review yet, but here are some interesting comments he made on the ar situation, when reviewing the Sony disc back in 2001.The film looks fine but the chosen aspect ratio is 1:37 flat. I've seen the picture at festivals, at the very formal Academy and at UCLA, and it's always projected at 1:85 widescreen. The titles are composed in horizontal blocks of text. In 16mm flat prints, microphones frequently intruded into the upper frame, especially in the scene of the interrupted meeting in the church. Those shots must have been slightly blown up here. The movie looks much better when matted to widescreen, with tighter compositions.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: 647 On the Waterfront
Damn, I thought that was news of the Criterion release of an obscure Wakamatsu film.Jeff wrote:Ecstatic Beaver