 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you gentlemen for your input! However, something's still not right. After reading all your information I went to the various sites and found differing viewpoints all around. When you go to blu-ray dot com they have this regarding the blu-ray of 'Marty':
Aspect ratio: 1.37:1
Original ratio: 1.85:1
Go to Kino Lormar's site to buy blu-ray 'Marty', Aspect ratio: 1.66
Three different answers but if it was filmed at 1.85:1, WHY would they give is something else?
All I wanted to do was clear up a "POSSIBLE" misunderstanding of the words "filmed at 1.85:1". That it's not as clear cut as a picture "filmed" in CinemaScope or some other anamorphic widescreen process. It looks like Bob knows that Mann (the director) or as Manderley seems to assert that Joseph LaShelle shot the film with the intention that it be PRESENTED in a 1:85:1 aspect ratio. I didn't attempt to argue otherwise but I did possibly make a false speculation based on the fact that Mann came from television and the film's source material was a teleplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it's one thing that IMDB can be relied upon, it's being totally unreliable when it comes to aspect ratios.
Yet still a drop in the oceans, aspect ratio now corrected :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048356/technical?ref_=tt_ql_dt_7
Thanks for telling us. When I looked it said 1.37:1. Someone must have told them to change it. If they're so "unreliable" anyway, why bother?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 24, 2014 - 1:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....Speaking of 1:85 matting, a couple of weeks ago I screened my IB print of THE MOUNTAIN for the Chelsea Rialto crowd. The film was originally shot in VistaVision and I have a full-frame 16mm dye transfer print. Ordinarily I wouldn't make efforts to matte a film (they don't make aperture plates for 16mm machines, even the arc machines that I use) but I had to do it for THE MOUNTAIN. You see, as Tracy is scaling a very sheer bit of the mountain, there is - under the "safe area" of the viewfinder - a very strategically placed MATTRESS! I think allowing the audience to see this would have defeated much of the tension in this otherwise nail-biting sequence! So I masked the top and bottom at the projection booth glass and we had a no-mattress 1:85 presentation. Not VistaVision ratio, but certainly better than it would have been at full frame!
....and, as I recall, a few matte paintings which were uncompleted top or bottom, where the painting's brush strokes petered out and you could see bits of the scaffolding which held up the plaster mountains on which Tracy and Wagner were climbing.
You really need to make up some frame captures of a few of these sequences and post them for historical purposes, Ray! (I've talked about certain techniques in this film to friends as a point of reference for years.....)
This is much like old open-matte prints of TO CATCH A THIEF (also in VistaVision) where you can see that the roof on which Cary Grant is climbing is not very far off the stage floor, and a line of sky-pan lights on the floor used as uplighting for this sequence can also be seen several times. As I recall, that transfer crept onto the old laserdisc release of this film as well.
It is my understanding that the old Howard Anderson Company, which had their key offices on the Paramount lot in those days, had a VistaVision-to-flat-Spherical optical printer set up and was then doing a lot of these transfers for Paramount. .....Obviously without a lot of adult supervision!!! I vaguely remember seeing this setup tucked away in a dusty little space in the upper reaches of one of the old soundstages near the optical department.
In the old days of VHS releases, Turner came out with a videotape release of MGM's EXECUTIVE SUITE, which was composed in 1.75. But this was an open matte transfer, 1.33, for which they had actually used the out-of-the-camera negative to scan, and you could see big 5K backlights on the top of the sets behind the actors' heads, incomplete walls, soundstage roof rafters and missing ceiling pieces!!! Great fun! Eventually, they remastered this for 1.75 and released it on a very nice widescreen laserdisc.
Unfortunately, for later releases, one of the youngsters in the transfer department, who was obviously scared of the elements in the original negative which he didn't understand, scanned the original negative to an open-matte 1.33 again, but this time zoomed in to get rid of the material (which would fall outside of the 1.75 area anyway) and, in the process, also cropped about 15% off the sides of the image, which is necessary to do with this zooming. That's what was released on the DVD. I keep hoping for a proper 1.75 again one day.
What's odd is that where many academics complain about the compositions being vertically cropped when these widescreen films are properly transferred to a widescreen video, they almost never complain about the widescreen films being HORIZONTALLY cropped when transferred (incorrectly) to open matte versions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.....Speaking of 1:85 matting, a couple of weeks ago I screened my IB print of THE MOUNTAIN for the Chelsea Rialto crowd. The film was originally shot in VistaVision and I have a full-frame 16mm dye transfer print. Ordinarily I wouldn't make efforts to matte a film (they don't make aperture plates for 16mm machines, even the arc machines that I use) but I had to do it for THE MOUNTAIN. You see, as Tracy is scaling a very sheer bit of the mountain, there is - under the "safe area" of the viewfinder - a very strategically placed MATTRESS! I think allowing the audience to see this would have defeated much of the tension in this otherwise nail-biting sequence! So I masked the top and bottom at the projection booth glass and we had a no-mattress 1:85 presentation. Not VistaVision ratio, but certainly better than it would have been at full frame!
....and, as I recall, a few matte paintings which were uncompleted top or bottom, where the painting's brush strokes petered out and you could see bits of the scaffolding which held up the plaster mountains on which Tracy and Wagner were climbing.
You really need to make up some frame captures of a few of these sequences and post them for historical purposes, Ray! (I've talked about certain techniques in this film to friends as a point of reference for years.....)
This is much like old open-matte prints of TO CATCH A THIEF (also in VistaVision) where you can see that the roof on which Cary Grant is climbing is not very far off the stage floor, and a line of sky-pan lights on the floor used as uplighting for this sequence can also be seen several times. As I recall, that transfer crept onto the old laserdisc release of this film as well.
It is my understanding that the old Howard Anderson Company, which had their key offices on the Paramount lot in those days, had a VistaVision-to-flat-Spherical optical printer set up and was then doing a lot of these transfers for Paramount. .....Obviously without a lot of adult supervision!!! I vaguely remember seeing this setup tucked away in a dusty little space in the upper reaches of one of the old soundstages near the optical department.
In the old days of VHS releases, Turner came out with a videotape release of MGM's EXECUTIVE SUITE, which was composed in 1.75. But this was an open matte transfer, 1.33, for which they had actually used the out-of-the-camera negative to scan, and you could see big 5K backlights on the top of the sets behind the actors' heads, incomplete walls, soundstage roof rafters and missing ceiling pieces!!! Great fun! Eventually, they remastered this for 1.75 and released it on a very nice widescreen laserdisc.
Unfortunately, for later releases, one of the youngsters in the transfer department, who was obviously scared of the elements in the original negative which he didn't understand, scanned the original negative to an open-matte 1.33 again, but this time zoomed in to get rid of the material (which would fall outside of the 1.75 area anyway) and, in the process, also cropped about 15% off the sides of the image, which is necessary to do with this zooming. That's what was released on the DVD. I keep hoping for a proper 1.75 again one day.
What's odd is that where many academics complain about the compositions being vertically cropped when these widescreen films are properly transferred to a widescreen video, they almost never complain about the widescreen films being HORIZONTALLY cropped when transferred (incorrectly) to open matte versions.
I too, would dearly love to see some of those 'frame captures'! Sounds like a lot of fun viewing them. (I'd love to see oh, 'The Ten Commandments' or 'Oklahoma!' or 'Rear Window'.)
And when you write: 'Unfortunately, for later releases, one of the youngsters in the transfer department..scared of the elements in the original negative...scanned the original negative to an open-matte 1.33..cropped about 15% off the sides of the image.' DAMN THAT KID SHAMROY! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 24, 2014 - 1:51 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....All I wanted to do was clear up a "POSSIBLE" misunderstanding of the words "filmed at 1.85:1". That it's not as clear cut as a picture "filmed" in CinemaScope or some other anamorphic widescreen process.....
That is simply not true. "Filmed at 1.85-1" has ALWAYS meant "Composed at 1.85-1 and intended to be projected that way".
What IS true is that there is a whole family of scholars who have grown up surrounded by poor TV transfers or improperly projected low-budget repertory theatre screenings of these widescreen films and have established their own fantasy history for them.
As for the proper projection of CinemaScope pictures being "clear cut", you obviously have never seen small-town theatres which ran their scope pictures cut off on the sides to 2-1 or 1.85 ratios. Then there was the theatre on Hollywood boulevard which, into the 1970s, ran their scope films through a variable anamorphic lens, squeezing the 2.55 or 2.35 images to 2-1! At a screening there of LORD JIM, Peter O'Toole looked even thinner than usual!
There is nothing clear-cut anymore about this ratio business, except that Bob Furmanek's (and Jack Theakston's) archaelogical work on this has been tremendous and valuable in bringing to light the real truths after so many years of misinformation.
As one who lived through this early era of new movie processes, watched them all, and was knowledgeable about them as I watched, this new concentration on the proper presentation of the films (once again), comes as a breath of fresh air for me.
The theatre in the relatively small town where I watched most of my films as I was growing up, seems to have been one of flagship theatres in the Fox West Coast chain. When the new technology was hitting the business, this theatre immediately put in the latest equipment---double-system 3D, WarnerPhonic double-system sound, auditorium surround sound, widescreen projection, CinemaScope projection, and 4-channel mag stereo. I remember that the theatre was often shut down for a day or two while the new equipment was being installed. In the space of about 9 months, from early spring to December, 1953, the theatre took out the old screen, and installed a brand new one 3 different times, together with new stage curtains and masking!!! It was an exhilarating time, reflecting the same kind of excitement from audiences that the introduction of sound had probably been about 25 years before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you again, Manderley.
It's great to hear from someone who not only worked behind the camera but witnessed the transition in 1953 firsthand.
Your input to this discussion is invaluable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 24, 2014 - 2:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....And when you write: 'Unfortunately, for later releases, one of the youngsters in the transfer department..scared of the elements in the original negative...scanned the original negative to an open-matte 1.33..cropped about 15% off the sides of the image.' DAMN THAT KID SHAMROY!.....
Actually, once the CinemaScope revolution hit the industry in 1953, Leon Shamroy never shot many films in spherical widescreen again. Most of his work was devoted to anamorphic or 70mm. What he DID encounter, however, was panning-and-scanning of his scope films to 1.33, and projection (and later, printing) of his 2.55 scope films to 2.35, with the left side of the screen composition cut off. That's yet another problem that becomes evident when you watch some transfers of the early 2.55 films on video---in "letterbox" to be sure---but cropped on the left, giving you an uneasily-weighted composition. (You can tell immediately by whether the title units or the trademark, usually centered, are slightly forced to the left. (The live-action image takes a little more sophistication in detection, except to an artistically sensitive eye.)
This "CinemaScope" cutoff was always very evident to me in later projections of BRIGADOON.
In the number, "Waitin' for My Dearie," the camera, as well as the performers in the number, are almost constantly on the move. At the end of certain musical phrases, all come to rest at the same moment. It is so precise that you can watch the film and their movements and predict when they are going to reach their positions for the next camera stop. Unfortunately, when they do---in these re-framed 2.35 transfers---the poor girl on the left is either cut in half or has very little space beside her. (She should have been very nice to the producer and asked for the right side position in the number! She'd probably have gotten that AND a nice meal with wine at Chasen's.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manderly, I've tried to find a way to contact you privately through this site with no luck.
Would you please consider contributing to our aspect ratio thread at the Home Theater Forum? Your expertise would be most welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.....And when you write: 'Unfortunately, for later releases, one of the youngsters in the transfer department..scared of the elements in the original negative...scanned the original negative to an open-matte 1.33..cropped about 15% off the sides of the image.' DAMN THAT KID SHAMROY!.....
Actually, once the CinemaScope revolution hit the industry in 1953, Leon Shamroy never shot many films in spherical widescreen again. Most of his work was devoted to anamorphic or 70mm. What he DID encounter, however, was panning-and-scanning of his scope films to 1.33, and projection (and later, printing) of his 2.55 scope films to 2.35, with the left side of the screen composition cut off. That's yet another problem that becomes evident when you watch some transfers of the early 2.55 films on video---in "letterbox" to be sure---but cropped on the left, giving you an uneasily-weighted composition. (You can tell immediately by whether the title units or the trademark, usually centered, are slightly forced to the left. (The live-action image takes a little more sophistication in detection, except to an artistically sensitive eye.)
This "CinemaScope" cutoff was always very evident to me in later projections of BRIGADOON.
In the number, "Waitin' for My Dearie," the camera, as well as the performers in the number, are almost constantly on the move. At the end of certain musical phrases, all come to rest at the same moment. It is so precise that you can watch the film and their movements and predict when they are going to reach their positions for the next camera stop. Unfortunately, when they do---in these re-framed 2.35 transfers---the poor girl on the left is either cut in half or has very little space beside her. (She should have been very nice to the producer and asked for the right side position in the number! She'd probably have gotten that AND a nice meal with wine at Chasen's.)
A joke. It was a joke. I just picked a name at random that some people outside the business might know, and those in the business would know. DAMN THAT LEON!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is simply not true. "Filmed at 1.85-1" has ALWAYS meant "Composed at 1.85-1 and intended to be projected that way".
I'm truly sorry if I'm coming across as a defensive nitpicker here but with statements like "nonsense" and "simply not true" arising, I feel compelled to stand my ground. And again your own words "intended to be projected" and "composed" perfectly encapsulate my argument that a COMPARISON between a genuine in the camera photographic process used during principal photography like CinemaScope, Vista Vision or true Cinerama is MORE definitive (at the time) of how that type of product was meant to be displayed, as opposed to a motion picture photographed flat with the D.P. looking through the lens, determining as to how their film might be displayed (matted, etc.) when later it's "out of their hands" (unless it's Kubrick) and they have nothing to do with it's presentation. Again it's just "more" of a tangible indication. There's still, as you've pointed out, plenty of room for abuse.
You say: "What IS true is that there is a whole family of scholars who have grown up surrounded by poor TV transfers or improperly projected low-budget repertory theatre screenings of these widescreen films and have established their own fantasy history for them."
I don't think we're in disagreement here. I'm certainly not one of those sarcastically referenced "scholars". Quite the opposite really (perhaps like yourself).
You say: "As for the proper projection of CinemaScope pictures being "clear cut", you obviously have never seen small-town theatres"
All I meant was that the "intention" of a proper presentation was more "clear cut" compared to a less identifiable film photographed flat by the D.P.'s eye when it's finished and in the can. In your zeal to wrongly identify me, you've jumped to another issue entirely: the systematic abuse at the time of wrongly presented films to paying customers of which I was most definitely one of. (I'm an old guy myself).
Quoting Bob: "It's very obvious but some people who have only seen the film in 1.37:1 for the past 55 years have a hard time believing they were not seeing it as Mann intended."
"Mann intended" indicates a reliance on a more personally subjective outcome than a physical manifestation of a photographic process. 'Shane' being the perfect example and Bob's own words: "SHANE became the first feature in 1953 shown in wide screen when it premiered at Radio City Music Hall on April 23. Initially composed by George Stevens for 1.37:1, it was presented with a 30 x 50 image in the ratio of 1.66:1." This begs the question for both you and Bob. How is that particular film best shown and why? I for one am open minded, are you?
Your own statements as well, Manderley, seem to support the idea that once principal photography is completed unless the "presentation" decision makers have the integrity to support the original director's or d.p.'s intentions (and that's presuming they know or care), the physical product itself will always be more of an indication of how it is meant to be used than the reliance on some previous human preferences.
Let's put it this way: At the time 'Shane' was made its film makers MAY not have realized the potential of it's best presentation. When 'Marty' was produced, the personal intentions of its creators in terms of its best presentation may have been unclear, ignored, or misunderstood. When 'The Searchers' was made in its one of a kind, photographic process it's at least more certain (compared to the other two) as to what everyone's intention was as to how it would be seen. Even today, having the Vista Vision moniker more clearly defines its intended aspect ratio than films like 'Marty' photographed materially flat but presumably "intended" to be displayed otherwise.
There are still many, many consumers today who are confused by this whole aspect ratio issue even with the many articles and informative posts out there. Many still think (POSSIBLY like the original poster) that all films shot IN the camera have one physically manifested exact size made and that is what they want to see. They still don't get that "intent" could have anything to do with the issue. When you and Bob use words like "intention" or "presented" or "projected", you're preaching to the choir. It's exactly what I was (and still am) trying to emphasize the importance of: the presentation!
I had the privilege of seeing 'Vertigo' long before it was restored, presented in all of its VISTA VISION glory. As Martin Scorsese has pointed out (with 'The Searchers') there's nothing to compare to it. The eye-popping colors, the 3-D effect without the glasses! I saw 'Ryan's Daughter' shown at the Academy Theater with their Arc Lamp projection that took my breath away. I saw Don Siegel's personal FLAT print of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' without the studio imposed narration, prologue and epilogue. All of these amazing presentations will probably never be offered again to anyone, anywhere...EVER. They are the flip side to the many examples you've given as to the awful and horrid presentations (bastardizations would probably be more accurate) that I'm also very personally familiar with. Both kinds and everything in between will continue on DVD and Blu-Ray and be debated about. And always what someone "saw" looking through a lens will be more contentious compared to what the physical product itself might tell us.
Then there's cut or censored prints, digitally enhanced transfers, new soundtracks for licensing rights issues, color timing, directors who change their minds about this or that with their personal cuts, and restoration issues, on and on. With so many of these "issues" in play over so many movies, do we really need to get hung up on this one aspect over aspect ratios? Don't we actually agree here? I'm not asking for the personal adoration you and Bob keep bestowing on one another but why the personal antagonism?
You say: "As one who lived through this early era of new movie processes, watched them all, and was knowledgeable about them as I watched, this new concentration on the proper presentation of the films (once again), comes as a breath of fresh air for me."
Me too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that VistaVision was intended to be flexible theatrically. Paramount suggested 1.85:1 as the optimum ratio but any ratio from 1.66:1 to 2:1 was possible. That's why they placed the framing guides in the upper right-hand corner at the start of each reel.
In fact, the world premiere of WHITE CHRISTMAS at Radio City Music Hall was presented in 1.97:1.
The important data in 2014 is the ratio that each film was composed for during principal photography, the one that the director and DP were intending. That's what is significant now as these films are mastered in HD and that's what we have tried so hard to accurately document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that VistaVision was intended to be flexible theatrically. Paramount suggested 1.85:1 as the optimum ratio but any ratio from 1.66:1 to 2:1 was possible. That's why they placed the framing guides in the upper right-hand corner at the start of each reel.
In fact, the world premiere of WHITE CHRISTMAS at Radio City Music Hall was presented in 1.97:1.
The important data in 2014 is the ratio that each film was composed for during principal photography, the one that the director and DP were intending. That's what is significant now as these films are mastered in HD and that's what we have tried so hard to accurately document.
And that's a tremendous gift to those like myself who care. I applaud your work sir. Fascinating info about the flexibility of the Vista Vision aspect ratio presentation. A question: Isn't it true that a special projector had to be used to show the Vista Vision features in the early days of its deployment? Or was it just the camera that the film was horizontally oriented in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much, Arthur. I truly appreciate your kind words.
Yes, there was a specially designed Century projector to run VV prints horizontally. Not many were made however and the vast majority of presentations were 35mm print-downs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an interesting article from the UK:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just want to let Montana Dave know that Marty on Blu-Ray from Kino-Lorber that was originally scheduled for release on July 15 has been pushed back to July 29th and the aspect ratio is listed as 1.85:1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 25, 2014 - 3:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
It's now listed for 1.66:1 on their website: http://www.kinolorber.com/video.php?id=1666
I suppose that's an acceptable compromise if they are matting an older, zoomed-in transfer.
Somehow I wonder if you can truly EVER matte a zoomed-in (even slightly zoomed-in) transfer
successfully. Headroom on 1.66 or 1.85 composition is very specific and with any kind of zoomed-in transfer you begin to start cropping the composed frame, sometimes very dangerously. Forgetting the height for a moment, you always need the spherical WIDTH of the originally photographed image to make a successful crop which will allow the top and bottom of the frame to fall into place.
You absolutely must start from the original camera negative (directly out of the camera) or a fine-grain (or color interpositive) directly off the camera negative, and matching the camera taking aperture on the duped film stock exactly. Then when the 1.85 cropping is done it reflects exactly how it was framed in the original camerawork when applied against the original negative.
No one yet seems to have asked or determined from Kino Lorber (or MGM) what ACTUAL master element the transfer for this MARTY Blu-ray (or, in fact, any of the other UA films in this package) was made from. The original camera negative? A fine grain made IN CONTACT with the original camera negative? A dupe negative, where blow-up might have been introduced?
etc., etc. etc..... What is the film stock date on the actual footage they have made the new transfer from---that should tell us a lot? There still remains a lot of vagueness about all this.
I was looking through my computer files last night and it appears that I may have a 1955 ORIGINAL 35mm Black-and-White Trailer for MARTY in my collection. It's likely buried deeply so I'll have to search for it for awhile, but finding it should give us some interesting answers to at least a few of our questions. If it IS an original (or alternate takes from the originally-shot footage), then it should accurately reflect the camera negative image width and allow a determination of whether the flat master material Kino Lorber is working with is blown-up or not.
The story goes on.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
