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

[Michael Kerpan]

> so what use are they?

Care to walk this remark back? I would really, sincerely recommend you do so. Or else add a big ol' smiley right afterwards. (While smileys are disfavored, remarks of this sort are even more disfavored).

[EddieLarkin]

Obviously I meant (and clarified as such) what use is any intellectual opinion on this issue when even the intellectuals fall on both sides of the debate? Obviously I don't think the scholars themselves are "useless" or else I wouldn't read them!

[EddieLarkin]

I stand by the comment. We can't determine the facts from opinions, even when the holders of those opinions feel that they are in fact facts.

A question: if Sirk or Metty were here to tell us which ratio was correct, and they said 2.00:1, would it change how you feel about the 1.37:1 version? If they clarified that any evidence of intentional mise en scène only visible in the open matte version was there merely by coincidence, that they actually paid little attention to the framing of the very top and bottom of the image (other than to keep the booms and edges of the set out of sight), would you abandon the 1.37:1 version? If so, why? The film still looks the same. Isn't this really about how one prefers the film to look, rather than abiding by the creator's intentions?

[domino harvey]

Obviously I meant (and clarified as such) what use is any intellectual opinion on this issue when even the intellectuals fall on both sides of the debate?

I initially responded with another relevant Google Image Search result but I guess I'll stop treating this as a joke because statements like the above are just sad at this point. The quest for objective approaches to film appreciation is fruitless and frankly ignorant.

EDIT: And now you've fallen into the intentional fallacy. Holy cat!

[EddieLarkin]

Ah okay, so you think how the film actually turned out is more important than anything the creator's intended? If that's the case there is no debate for us to have; I don't think there's anything wrong with having a personal preference for the 1.37:1 version, if one thinks it looks better. I do have a problem though with anyone who thinks the 2.00:1 looks better being shat on because apparently the people who like the 1.37:1 version are just more intelligent man.

And it still doesn't answer the question of how the film should be presented: the way the documentation says it was intended (and how apparent yokels think it should be seen), or how the "intellectuals" think it should be seen (a point not all are agreed on anyway)?

[Michael Kerpan]

Domino -- I do NOT see how the intentional fallacy applies (meaningfully) to aspect ratios. The issue in this case is essential factual -- did the film maker plan on a given film being shown in one particular aspect ratio? If the film maker knew more than one projection ratio would be used, did he envision the film in one aspect ratio, but protect for the other -- or did he simultaneously try to envision both? If more than projection ratio was anticipated, did the film maker nevertheless have a strong preference for one ration or another? Did the film maker anticipate one projection ratio being used, but acquiesce when a slightly different one was used with an unconcerned shrug of the shoulders (e.g., 2.2 vs. 2.35, 1.78 vs 1.85)?

This is not a question of discerning meaning, but only establishing facts when possible. Or are you suggesting the film makers intened aspect ratio is not especially important if you feel that the film looks better in some other ratio?

[EddieLarkin]

Or are you suggesting the film makers intened aspect ratio is not especially important if you feel that the film looks better in some other ratio?

That is what I took it to mean, thus my post, but I could be wrong. I've always understood intentional fallacy to mean that the work itself is more important than whatever the creator actually intended; that it's a fallacy to base assertions on creator intentions.

[swo17]

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.

I suppose this is a delicate way of saying "I'm definitively right but you can go ahead pretending you're right too if you want." Look, no one here is disputing that Magnificent Obsession was exhibited in 2:1, or that that was the studio's policy at the time. The case for the other side is that, during this transitional era, Sirk and Metty were still used to (and preferred) composing for Academy, that they perceived widescreen at the time as a passing fad, and so they protected for 2:1 but composed for Academy. None of the documentation supporting 2:1 addresses this issue, and so we are left only to analyze the compositions themselves.

Should the film get a dual AR release? Maybe, but then where do you draw the line?

I'd say you draw the line for films where there has been substantial debate about the intended ratio for years/decades. I'll concede that the case I've described above isn't the kind of thing that would hold up in court, and I could make a similar statement of dubious merit about any old film, but the fact that so many people have been making this particular argument about this particular film for so long has to count for something.

[EddieLarkin]

I never even intended to start discussing Magnificent Obsession, heck it's all been done before (5 years ago now!) and obviously the more hardened on each side of the debate aren't going to change. I just wanted to defend the validity of Bob's article which I felt had been called into question.

[swo17]

I never even intended to start discussing Magnificent Obsession, heck it's all been done before (5 years ago now!) and obviously the more hardened on each side of the debate aren't going to change. I just wanted to defend the validity of Bob's article which I felt had been called into question.

And I never intended to question the validity of the information that he gathers, only the authoritativeness of it. Would it take so much for him to simply refer to his findings as "original exhibition ratios" as opposed to "correct aspect ratios"?

[EddieLarkin]

Would it take so much for him to simply refer to his findings as "original exhibition ratios" as opposed to "correct aspect ratios"?

"Original exhibition ratio" would not be a correct description, as these films will have actually played in many ratios ranging from the one recommended to a variety of other widescreen ratios depending on the screen size and aperture plate available, to even fully open matte in some cases. And don't forget about the genuine 1.37:1 films that were cropped to widescreen on original exhibition. And the 2.66:1 CinemaScope films that were only ever printed and seen at 2.55:1. Bob's listings are the aspect ratios the creators will have been instructed to compose at. Yes, there's room to suggest that some film makers may have ignored instruction and composed how they would have preferred, but there is no actual documentary evidence for this, only the opinion of how some see the film. When it comes to hard evidence, the list is authoritative.

[Gregory]

One problem is that using studio policy as the only evidence that counts for what the "correct" aspect ratio is, and equating that with a "director-intended ratio" too uniformly skews the discussion so that dates the studios officially adopted widescreen and the announcements in the trades are the end-all and be-all. There's little room left to ask questions or state personal preferences without being repeatedly told essentially, "No, you're wrong."
And the hard evidence of studio policy doesn't even need to be there for many to insist that widescreen is Right and Academy is Wrong; how else to explain all the grumbling about Criterion's cameraman-supervised Lord of the Flies release?

Here's an example of a discussion with so much arrogance in various posts that no one except the widescreen side could ever have a valid point: this HTF thread about Summertime.Janus has distributed the film in Academy for many years, but the trade papers say it was meant to be widescreen. But there's "excess headroom," so for Bruce Kimmel just looking at the DVDBeaver caps shows that Criterion's 1.33:1 release is "WRONG." (All he really says is: Look at the caps! It's wrong, and what's wrong should be right! What a well-informed comment.) So then we just get all kinds of "I'm right, no room for disagreement" comments, with some general condescension anyone who disagrees as stubborn, misinformed, and used to watching open-matte transfers for too long. In other words anyone who ever states a preference for open matte with almost any film made after the date of the studio's official change to widescreen is just like Jeffrey Wells, apparently.
Then, when a member gave an example of a shot within the film proper that couldn't be masked to widescreen without ruining it, well that's problematic too because the sources ready to hand are Criterion's transfer and some YouTube clips, and those on the widescreen side of the issue seem sure that all such transfers in Academy are "zoomboxed" or otherwise manipulated (and some of which are, surely). But it doesn't just boil down to that, because I've seen a 35mm Janus print of Summertime properly framed for Academy, not zoomed way in, and there are numerous shots in which heads would be cut off if it were masked to 1.85 (unless it were zoomed way out to the right/left edges of the negative to avoid that—the manipulation can work both ways.)
Yet I wouldn't think of trying to use that example to try and show that a preference for Academy is reasonable, because I would just get a lot of veiled insults about my knowledge of the subject, quibbles about how the print probably was projected incorrectly in some way, more images from trade papers showing that it was meant to be widescreen, complaints about horrible it is to have to see "excess headroom," etc. And I don't recall anyone in that thread saying they've seen the film projected in 35mm in Academy. Again, all some people seem to need is clippings from trades and a general distaste for shots showing "excess headroom" and they can go to town.

[EddieLarkin]

And the hard evidence of studio policy doesn't even need to be there for many to insist that widescreen is Right and Academy is Wrong; how else to explain all the grumbling about Criterion's cameraman-supervised Lord of the Flies release?

Please see my post here. I am quite happy now with Lord of the Flies at 1.37:1, even though much of it was technically composed in widescreen.

Then, when a member gave an example of a shot in the film itself where the whole 1.37 frame couldn't be masked to widescreen without ruining it, well that's problematic too because the sources ready to hand are Criterion's transfer and some YouTube clips, and those on the widescreen side of the issue are sure that all such transfers in Academy are "zoomboxed" or otherwise manipulated (and some of which are, surely).

You should read the rest of the debate which continues here and onto the next page. As you can see, the image that was posted is in fact a publicity still and does not appear in the film. Since you've seen the film in Academy I would thought you'd have realised this.

But it doesn't just boil down to that, because I've seen a 35mm Janus print of Summertime properly framed for Academy, not zoomed way in, and there are numerous shots in which heads would be cut off if it were masked to 1.85 (unless it were zoomed way out to the right/left edges of the negative to avoid that—the manipulation can work both ways.)

I've seen the film in 1.78:1 and do not recall this being the case at all; quite the opposite in fact. I can only give you my assurance that the film was composed for and is correct in widescreen, since clearly documentation and frame grabs are not going to convince you. Though I would think a quote from the producer stating the film is being shot for widescreen is relevant:

[swo17]

Would it take so much for him to simply refer to his findings as "original exhibition ratios" as opposed to "correct aspect ratios"?

"Original exhibition ratio" would not be a correct description, as these films will have actually played in many ratios ranging from the one recommended to a variety of other widescreen ratios depending on the screen size and aperture plate available, to even fully open matte in some cases. And don't forget about the genuine 1.37:1 films that were cropped to widescreen on original exhibition. And the 2.66:1 CinemaScope films that were only ever printed and seen at 2.55:1. Bob's listings are the aspect ratios the creators will have been instructed to compose at.

OK then, how about "studio-dictated ratios"? Do you not see how using the word "correct" in this debate allows no room for differing thoughts on the matter?

When it comes to hard evidence, the list is authoritative.

OK, it's authoritative about what ratio the studio dictated for a given film, but not necessarily about what was intended or preferred by the film's maker. (In most cases there's no difference, but there are always exceptions!) The list is not definitive as to what is "correct"--with a subject like this, I don't know that any list could be.

Also, regarding Lord of the Flies, I'm glad you were able to find an article somewhere that allowed you to enjoy watching the film in 1.37:1!

[Gregory]

You should read the rest of the debate which continues here and onto the next page. As you can see, the image that was posted is in fact a publicity still and does not appear in the film. Since you've seen the film in Academy I would thought you'd have realised this.

I don't see how that seemed "obvious" as you say in the linked discussion. There is a shot that's extremely close to that one, with Hepburn at the top of the frame, I wouldn't suggest that it matches the image exactly, but when I saw it in 35mm it didn't look like anything that would look appropriate at 1.85. I'll watch the scene again soon and get back to you. But I posted that image because it was part of the thread I was discussing; it's hardly the only shot which looks composed for Academy.
A number of the close-ups are that way. Let me pick another example: after Jane (Kate) confronts Renato about the red goblets, she is crying. He goes up to her and there is a closely framed two-shot with their heads near the top of the 1.37 frame. I cannot conceive how that shot could be masked to 1.85 without destroying it.

I really don't want to discuss Lord of the Flies anymore, but based on the last I've read on the "debate" some are still implying that the ratio on the Criterion disc is suspect or simply wrong, so I believe my point stands. I don't want to search HTF etc. for examples from the past year or anything, so will just say that if there's been a big change of heart about the matter since last I read about it, great.

[zedz]

You know, the first couple of thousand times we had this argument we could never reach a definitive conclusion, but this time around I'm confident that we're only a couple more posts away from finding a solution that everybody will be satisfied with.

Let's just leave the rattler snoozing under a rock and walk away.

[Gregory]

I kept telling myself I'd carry my opinions about Summertime to the grave, due to the sordid history of the aspect ratio debate, made even worse by Jeffrey Wells turning the topic into even more of a joke. The ratio Criterion and Janus have distributed the film in for ages has been called "wrong" out of hand several times on this forum, and I kept my opinions to myself, but I guess it started to eat at me a little and I needed to vent. A "definitive conclusion" isn't something I hold out any hope for.

[EddieLarkin]

I don't see how that seemed "obvious" as you say in the linked discussion. There is a shot that's extremely close to that one, with Hepburn at the top of the frame, I wouldn't suggest that it matches the image exactly, but when I saw it in 35mm it didn't look like anything that would look appropriate at 1.85. I'll watch the scene again soon and get back to you. But I posted that image because it was part of the thread I was discussing; it's hardly the only shot which looks composed for Academy.

Again, it's not a "shot". There is no shot during that scene were Hepburn's head approaches the top of the frame, as I describe in the HTF post.

A number of the close-ups are that way. Let me pick another example: after Jane (Kate) confronts Renato about the red goblets, she is crying. He goes up to her and there is a closely framed two-shot with their heads near the top of the 1.37 frame. I cannot conceive how that shot could be masked to 1.85 without destroying it.

I disagree:



Note that his head is already cropped and so further cropping hardly destroys the scene. Hepburn's head is safe from even 1.85:1 cropping.

I really don't want to discuss Lord of the Flies anymore, but based on the last I've read on the "debate" some are still implying that the ratio on the Criterion disc is suspect or simply wrong, so I believe my point stands. I don't want to search HTF etc. for examples from the past year or anything, so will just say that if there's been a big change of heart about the matter since last I read about it, great.

There has been a change of my heart on the matter; I'm the only person I can speak for or really care about when it comes to how I watch a film.

OK then, how about "studio-dictated ratios"? Do you not see how using the word "correct" in this debate allows no room for differing thoughts on the matter?

OK, it's authoritative about what ratio the studio dictated for a given film, but not necessarily about what was intended or preferred by the film's maker. (In most cases there's no difference, but there are always exceptions!) The list is not definitive as to what is "correct"--with a subject like this, I don't know that any list could be.

Do we agree then that the "studio dictated" ratio, when there is no other hard documentary evidence to contradict it, should always be followed when mastering for home video, and that other ratios can then be added as alternatives where necessary? For instance, should Riot in Cell Block 11 have come with a 1.66:1 version, and then a 1.37:1 also (though I'm not aware of anyone particularly caring about this film being in 1.37:1 anyway!). If Criterion upgrade Summertime, should a widescreen version be included and then a 1.37:1 also to satisfy Greg?

Also, regarding Lord of the Flies, I'm glad you were able to find an article somewhere that allowed you to enjoy watching the film in 1.37:1!

That particular film presented a very unique case, as detailed in the interview linked to. It was literally composed in two ratios for different parts of the film. I hope never to come across such a confounding case again!

[Gregory]

Eddie, it's as if we saw two different versions of the film (which we probably did, in a sense). That cap of the scene I mentioned does not look like the framing of the shot in the 35mm Janus print I saw several months ago, and of course I can't show what I noticed at the time, so it's probably best if I just let the subject drop. I even think the cap you've posted would look really bad in 1.85:1, but of course that matters to no one but myself. Cropping that scene looks more like 1970s cinematography to me than 1955 cinematography, and it doesn't look like what I associate with the way David Lean composed for widescreen later on.

Again, to be clear, my point in bringing up Summertime in the first place was not to argue for Academy but to make some points about the ways in which some on both sides of these debates apply limited facts and criteria to say, "I'm right" (Wells being one of the most obviously ridiculous. His reply to Becker about Hard Day's Night was especially great—paraphrase: The film doesn't belong to Criterion or the people who shot the film; it belongs to we the people, and we demand more frame height, because I say so.

[swo17]

Do we agree then that the "studio dictated" ratio, when there is no other hard documentary evidence to contradict it, should always be followed when mastering for home video, and that other ratios can then be added as alternatives where necessary?

I think it would be a sensible policy to generally accommodate those ratios for which there is hard evidence, but also to keep an ear to the ground about which films have sufficient demand for alternate presentations, and to bolster releases for such films with multiple aspect ratio options.

[EddieLarkin]

Eddie, it's as if we saw two different versions of the film (which we probably did, in a sense). That cap of the scene I mentioned does not look like the framing of the shot in the 35mm Janus print I saw several months ago, and of course I can't show what I noticed at the time, so it's probably best if I just let the subject drop. I even think the cap you've posted would look really bad in 1.85:1, but of course that matters to no one but myself.

Are you sure it maybe wasn't 1.66:1? Maybe the projectionist or whoever was responsible for the new print messed up. I sure hope Criterion aren't planning to release a 1.33:1 version that has less information than the already available 1.33:1 Japanese Blu-ray (Beaver caps here)!

Here is the whole shot in approx 1.63:1 (assuming 1.66:1 is the intended ratio* and making some allowance that side information is missing from the 1.33:1 Blu-ray), starting as the camera begins to move in, then when she turns around, and where the camera reaches its closest point:




*US documentation suggests 1.85:1, though this being a British production 1.75:1 may be more likely, though going by the dates 1.66:1 is also a possibility so I went with that it being the tallest

[EddieLarkin]

I think it would be a sensible policy to generally accommodate those ratios for which there is hard evidence, but also to keep an ear to the ground about which films have sufficient demand for alternate presentations, and to bolster releases for such films with multiple aspect ratio options.

I agree of course. Understand where I'm coming from all the time in these debates; getting the documented ratio on the discs. Despite the prevalence of Blu-ray customers wanting to have their TVs filled, "incorrect" open matte presentations still prevail in some cases. Riot in Cell Block 11 isn't even a film I've seen, so what is anyone's opinion of how the film looks open matte worth to me? Absolutely zilch. I want to see the film presented how the documentation suggests first, and if I feel it's wrong I can sample the alternative version and then investigate why the documentation might be incorrect (not that that's ever happened yet!).

[Gregory]

Yes, I'm positive I saw Summertime in 1.33 not 1.66, though the latter would certainly be better than 1.85. It might even work quite well!

Another choice quote from Bruce Kimmel from a thread Eddie linked above. Not trying to shit-stir, but this is probably a better example of the kind of thing I was discussing than the example I gave: I know how films should be composed, I have eyes in my head, and if you don't see it the same way I do, then you don't know anything about moviemaking.

This is where you err. I do something radical, Steve - I WATCH THE MOVIE. If there's too much headroom in the movie I'm WATCHING and that movie is full-frame when it shouldn't be, why, yes, it's very obvious to me it's an open matte transfer that is incorrect. When I watch the MOVIE of Plan Nine from Outer Space it is very obvious it should not be full frame - it should be matted down to its original aspect ratio. Anyone who knows anything about moviemaking could tell you that in an instant. If I watch Summertime, the actual film, I see a film composed for widescreen. Eddie just watched it. Same thing. I don't need to look at screen caps to know anything - I have eyes, I watch, and I know. So, what exactly do you want me to say beyond I don't like screen caps and base nothing on them? You want to have a discussion with me, discuss a film you've seen, not a screen cap. Give me time codes where to look and I will explain, as Eddie has, why a shot is framed a certain way - with none of this malarky about heads cut off that would be cut off in Academy or scope had the cameraman been shooting in those ratios. I can show you any Academy film where heads are cut off at the top in certain shots, whether close-ups or over the shoulder shots. I can show you any scope film with the same kind of framing, so that argument is absolutely meaningless.

This notion of an a priori understanding of the correct ratio possessed by someone who understands and WATCHES films intertwines oddly with the Furmanek-driven reliance on facts reported in trade publications to figure out the "correct one."

[EddieLarkin]

Another choice quote from Bruce Kimmel from a thread Eddie linked above. Not trying to shit-stir, but this is probably a better example of the kind of thing I was discussing than the example I gave: I know how films should be composed, I have eyes in my head, and if you don't see it the same way I do, then you don't know anything about moviemaking.

How is his attitude different from a number of users here who will simply state that a film is obviously Academy, and that one lacks intelligence if they can't see the obvious?

[MichaelB]

That particular film presented a very unique case, as detailed in the interview linked to. It was literally composed in two ratios for different parts of the film. I hope never to come across such a confounding case again!

Don't whatever you do watch Herostratus!

This film had a gestation period of several years, and at some unspecified point writer-director Don Levy decided that it should be projected in widescreen, even though many of the (presumably extant) shots were clearly composed for 1.37:1.

When creating the master for the BFI Flipside edition, poor James White had a nightmare trying to respect Levy's wishes - but the simple fact was that running the film straight through in widescreen looked unambiguously terrible, so he ended up having to adjust the framing shot by shot in order to get the film to "work" in Levy's preferred ratio (Levy, sadly, was no longer around to advise him), even though this wouldn't have been replicated in theatrical screenings.

Very wisely, the BFI also threw in a 1.37:1 version, and in the current dual-format edition that's the favoured framing (since it's the ratio of the BD transfer, with the widescreen version relegated to DVD).