 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That would be great. There's a trailer on You Tube but I don't know the source material.
It opens with Lancaster addressing the audience and there's enough head room to drive a truck through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That would be great. There's a trailer on You Tube but I don't know the source material.
It opens with Lancaster addressing the audience and there's enough head room to drive a truck through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
I took this information from here:
http://www.amazon.com/Marty-Blu-ray-Ernest-Borgnine/dp/B00KE3B9US/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1403788370&sr=1-1&keywords=marty+blu
I didn't find any mention of the a.r. on Kino's site. Am I blind Bob?
Thank you for the info. You're right, Amazon lists it as you mentioned. Wonder why it's date was pushed back a bit, but no problem. The only thing that still gives me pause is this: Kino Lorber, the company releasing the blu-ray of 'Marty' is listing different information on their own website. If you go to Kino Lorber to 'buy videos', you'll see 'Marty' click on dvd info for the film and you'll see they list it as 'Anamorphic 1.66'. (What the hell's going on with this company?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what I understand, the movie was shot in a format that made it possible for it to be exhibited 1:75, but that effect was achieved by masking top and bottom.
I fear the same argument is at hand as the one that rages from time to time over "Summertime"...with folks arguing that David Lean shot it only in Academy ratio when widescreen was totally the norm (and the way it was shown in many theaters).
Anything to say on this one guys? More debate over how a film is best PRESENTED. The Criterion DVD and a (really gorgeous) Japanese Blu-Ray are in Academy ratio.
I'd still like to know what Manderley's and Bob's opinions are on Shane's best a.r. presentation and while we're at it, 'War of the Worlds' and 'Summertime' if they have any.
Oh and thanks Bob for both the Vista Vision article and your informed response on the projector. I was told that it was at the Chinese Theater when I saw 'Vertigo' in 1971. I know now, thanks to your response that it's highly improbable it was there but I'd like to ask a possibly foolish question: If it was used, could it have made a difference in what we saw? It couldn't have been around for long so my guess is you dug pretty deep for that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take the position that a film should be seen today as the director intended. In the case of SHANE and WAR OF THE WORLDS, those were filmed in 1952 and composed for 1.37:1.
SUMMERTIME was composed for widescreen and that's how it should be seen. Criterion botched that one, just as they did with RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11, another film clearly composed for widescreen.
By all accounts, horizontal VV was stunning. I wish I had seen it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
I took this information from here:
http://www.amazon.com/Marty-Blu-ray-Ernest-Borgnine/dp/B00KE3B9US/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1403788370&sr=1-1&keywords=marty+blu
I didn't find any mention of the a.r. on Kino's site. Am I blind Bob?
Thank you for the info. You're right, Amazon lists it as you mentioned. Wonder why it's date was pushed back a bit, but no problem. The only thing that still gives me pause is this: Kino Lorber, the company releasing the blu-ray of 'Marty' is listing different information on their own website. If you got to Kino Lorber to 'buy videos', you'll see 'Marty' click on dvd info for the film and you'll see they list it as 'Anamorphic 1.66'. (What the hell's going on with this company?)
Honestly, I think many people, consumers and software producers alike are confused about all these issues regarding not only aspect ratios but cut or censored films, alterations of soundtracks on "restored" films, color timing issues, director's, definitive, cuts (with occasional variables on those) etc.
I remember when the guys at Twilight Time came out with a non-anamorphic transfer on DVD of 'Violent Saturday' their saying the materials for an anamorphic widescreen transfer didn't exist. I purchased the French Blu-Ray of this title long ago and it's stunning and yes it's anamorphic wide-screen. I see now that Twilight Time is coming out with their own Blu-Ray.
There are sometimes differences in visual information, (the M.O.C. 'Harakiri' with significantly more on the sides vs. Criterion's) aspect ratios (the Australian DVD of 'Lovesick' is an anamorphic widescreen transfer, the U.S. is flat), picture quality (the DVD of Scarlet Street here in Australia looks better than the Blu-Ray in the U.S.), availability (Desert Fury now out of print here in Australia is a mind blowingly beautiful DVD, Gunman's Walk an incredible Western only on DVD in France) running time (The German 'Hangmen Also Die' has some damn important scenes not on ANY other available DVD anywhere, Once Upon A Time In America newly announced EXTENDED director's cut!) region coding variables...(Anyone spending their hard earned $$ on this stuff HAS to go multi-region!)
I cannot tell you how many mislabeled DVDs I've purchased over the years in terms of aspect ratios etc. I had a store I would go to often because the guy who worked there would open DVDs for me and play them in the store (titles like 'Flaming Star' and 'Prime Cut') so I could verify that they were mislabeled as 1.33:1.
I'm a self-confessed DVD/Blu-Ray junkie who's now checking, researching, debating all of these issues and more regarding films and their transfers. It's equally as exhilarating as it is frustrating. The only common denominators are that I never get any sleep and stay not only broke, but in credit card debt. My passion for film can further be seen here:
www.thecinemacafe.com
I welcome all (free) subscribers even those who hate my guts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take the position that a film should be seen today as the director intended. In the case of SHANE and WAR OF THE WORLDS, those were filmed in 1952 and composed for 1.37:1.
SUMMERTIME was composed for widescreen and that's how it should be seen. Criterion botched that one, just as they did with RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11, another film clearly composed for widescreen.
By all accounts, horizontal VV was stunning. I wish I had seen it!
Well then blow me away because what I saw at that screening was unlike anything I've ever witnessed. Harris and Katz couldn't even come close. That projector must have been there. When it came to the dream sequence, people were audibly screaming. The size of the image was MASSIVE. The colors!!...ok I'll stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 35mm prints of VV films can look very good.
I doubt that you saw a horizontal presentation. The print would have been very faded as those prints were not dye-transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 35mm prints of VV films can look very good.
I doubt that you saw a horizontal presentation. The print would have been very faded as those prints were not dye-transfer.
Ok, but in either event, it made me somewhat disappointed when the restored version came out (in the theaters).
Thanks for the answers on the others, I'm loving this. Sorry but I've got another: Sabrina (1954). It's flat here but 1.78:1 in the States (both on Blu-Ray).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wilder had initially planned SABRINA for 2:1 widescreen but settled on 1.75:1 before the start of principal photography in New York on September 28, 1953.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info on Sabrina. I've compared captures and there's just too much headroom on the 1.33.1 Blu-Ray from Europe and here in Australia.
I know it was released in 1958 but Roger Corman (known for his low budget productions) directed Machine Gun Kelly. I've seen a flat DVD transfer and it honestly looks like it was composed for 1.37:1 as IMDB states. I think I know what you're going to say but I had to ask...as I've been asked so many times about that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's widescreen, probably 1.85:1.
The amount of theaters still running 1.37:1 after the transition in 1953/54 was miniscule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's widescreen, probably 1.85:1.
The amount of theaters still running 1.37:1 after the transition in 1953/54 was miniscule.
Got it. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's my pleasure.
There is an awful lot of wrong aspect ratio on IMDB, especially from the first decade of non-anamorphic widescreen.
It's always best to go to the source and trust documented, primary source materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duplicate
|
|
|
|
|
|
ditto
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Daily Variety, four days before MARTY began filming. This widescreen listing would remain throughout November when the film wrapped production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some new information has been discovered and I've put all the relevant documentation in one post: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/?p=4110690
This took quite some time to read all the various articles, but I sincerely thank you for posting it - echos from the distant past. I am ordering 'Marty' when it becomes available as it's the only Blu ray that will probably be issued for it. All in all though, I think the blame (if there is any blame for any of this), is that Kino Lorber simply did NOT 'inspect the film elements' before they issued their version, which is a shame really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
