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

[captveg]

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.

[EddieLarkin]

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.

[WorstFella]

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.

[swo17]

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?

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?

[WorstFella]

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).

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.

[EddieLarkin]

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.

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.

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.

[John Hodson]

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...

[tojoed]

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.

[John Hodson]

As it happens, I have seen "Dam Busters" in Academy, but he doesn't care.

As have I. It's clearly composed wide.

[EddieLarkin]

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.

[captveg]

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).

[captveg]

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.

[Bob Furmanek]

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.

[Bob Furmanek]

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.

[domino harvey]

(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).

[Bob Furmanek]

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

Any moderators in the house?

[John Hodson]

(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.

[captveg]

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

[knives]

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.

[GaryC]

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.

[Gregory]

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.

[Bob Furmanek]

Any time, Gregory.

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

[domino harvey]

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!

[Bob Furmanek]

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

[captveg]

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!"