Bob and Jack are restoration rock stars who deserve cheers from everyone who loves movies. Thank you for giving these sensitive, meticulous preservationists such a worthy showcase.
Amen to that Steven. Charlotte and I cannot sing their praises enough, and we are happy to give them a forum to speak about their work. Not to mention that they are all around great guys. -A
What a great one! So informative. Brings back a lot of memories of my oldest brother as a Union Projectionist in 1970. Sometimes theater management would allow my to watch him work. Three carbon burner beauties. To this day, my wife gives me that eye roll when we are watching a movie and I start counting quietly down when that first reel cue appears. When " It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World " came to television. Wow! Talk about major panning.
My older brothers had seen Mad World in a theater and were always talking about how great it was. I saw it for the first time on network television, and while I enjoyed it, I didn’t quite get what all the excitement had been about. Then I saw a 35mm Technicolor print on a 50 foot screen with about 500 people in the theater. Talk about a difference!
@@3DFILMARCHIVE Agreed!. I saw it when it first came out at the " Lyric Theater ".It was amazing on the big screen. With a full theater, the laughter at times was almost deafening.
Wow almost sounds like the big gun company's were battling for their format which didn't help! And it's great to see Bob and I have to say "you R unbelievable" my friend thanks for saving as much as U can in R 3-D world 🌎 😎
I'm 68 now and have had a special interest in movies since I was a youngster. I've lived through a lot of the movie history you discuss on this podcast, and amazingly, I find there is still more for me to learn about it.
This is a great discussion. This also comes into with modern movies like the MCU movies that are “Imax Enhanced”. The so called Imax version of Endgame has the book mic dipping into the top of the frame towards the end.
Keep talking about aspect ratios, please. When I was a teenager, I saw Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. My friend and I started noticing par cans in shots. There were small lamps in the car scene when Candy and Martin. And, hilariously, the sentimental scene at home, par cans everywhere. I'd never known why that was until now. Thank you so much.
I've been a fan of the 3D Film Archive for years now, and have collected all their blu-ray releases from the beginning. I still project at home in 3D on a 120-inch screen and am so grateful to Bob Furmanek and his team for their outstanding work in reviving the 1950's 3-D classics. He also has a terrific site for the early years of stereophonic sound once widescreen really took off with 3D and wide-gauge film presentations. I have a terrific BFI blu-ray special edition of SHANE which includes all the widescreen and stereo experimentation done on that picture's release, which was originally shot for full-frame exhibition, before Paramount decided to exhibit it as a widescreen release. This was a great video. I could listen to these guys for hours.
@@TheVid54 We also collected the 3D Film Archive releases way before we met Bob Furmanek. In fact, when we first moved to Los Angeles, we attended one of his 3D Film Festivals at The Egyptian Theater. But we did not really “meet” Bob until he reached out to us after our 3D episodes of Perf Damage (audio only). It is always refreshing when the man lives up to his reputation. Bob is a great guy!
Loaded with lots of info! As a veteran telecine colorist, most of the epics I worked on were transferred "on the fly".including pan&san, scene to scene correction,sometimes make an edit and keep going. The producers/distributors just wanted a master to sell to TV syndication.Fun fact,Mr. Lewis was a very astute film producer.One of the first to have a video tap on the camera to view takes. Paramount gave him full support. I think "Errand Boy" was the first.Life magazine had a spread on Adolp Zucker's new Wonder Kid.
Here in the UK back in the 1950's to the 1980's in cinemas where I worked if you ran a film showing the boom mics and the top of sets the projectionist could find themselves in trouble because it showed they had not had a rehearsal of the film. In cinemas with 70mm we could have top and side masking. In my home cinema I have 4 aspect ratios for 35mm (4 By 3, 1.85:1, optical Cinemascope and Magnetic Cinemascope) The 70mm screen is set for Todd-AO and D-150.
Thanks for another great video, a real treat to listen to Bob & Jack discuss this subject with you. To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott (rather badly, I'm afraid): What a tangled web of woes, when first we practice to compose...
A wonderful episode! The guests are very knowledgeable and l've loved their website over the years! In fairness to 80's and before home pan and scan, TVs were much, much smaller back then, a 25 inch was the upper size and most watched 13 or 19 inch TVs. This left especially cinemascope letter boxed removing almost half the available area for the image. Now we can do much better and I would never want p&s in place of a DoP or director's composition.
Great episode with Bob and Jack. Always love hearing from those guys - they are full of crazy amounts of film knowledge. BTW, I just learned about the Perf Damage podcast today, and I really enjoyed it. I will be subscribing as well as going back to earlier episodes. Thanks!
What a terrific interview-! Thanks so much to Bob and Jack for sharing their time. I have only one point to add, which pertains to what was referred to as the "Framing Tree". The correct name for that indicator is the *Framing Index* - and there were actually _Two_ different styles. The style seen in the film clip has two horizontal lines, indicating the framing positions for 1.66 & 1.85. The second style consisted of _three_ horizontal lines representing framing for: 1.66; 1.85 & 2.0 - the marks for 1.66 & 2.0 extending off the vertical line in the right hand direction; and the 1.85 mark extending leftward from the vertical line.
I knew someone would catch that!! All the scans I had on my local hard drive didn’t have the “full tree” so I just used what I had. I tried faking the missing line in, but it looked weird so I just went without. Thanks for providing the clarity for the viewers here! -C
I remember seeing an open matte screening of The Searchers around 1980 at an old theater and I had no idea at the time what was going on, and I held it against the film at first. Later I learned that the projectionist was supposed to mask it.
37:04 In visual arts classes, I was always taught about the "visual center" actually being on the upper third line of any image, not dead center (supposed to be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, as our eye/brain would otherwise "push down" what's in dead center). Perhaps that's what the studios were thinking when they put the titles higher than usual?
That was only done on standard ratio titles that were on the shelf and shown widescreen post-June 1953. I don't believe they were thinking of anything other than having projectionists favor the upper portion of the image to eliminate head clipping in widescreen presentations.
I love that you guys brought up the 70mm re-release of Gone With The Wind. I wondered for the longest time what the film would look like being cropped so drastically, and I got a hint from some black and white still photos of the blown-up image in the book Pictorial History of Gone With The Wind. As crazy as it sounds, I have wanted, and still do want to see that film in its 70mm re-release, and every time a big Blu-Ray anniversary release of the film occurred, I would check to see if they included the release as a bonus, but it still has not happened. Sadly, the film has been a big source of controversy lately, so God knows if the 70mm release will ever see the light of day.
The first time I saw GONE WITH THE WIND was that 1968 70mm blow-up, so the 2:20 to 1 aspect ratio wasn't as disturbing as it could have been for me. The funny thing was I didn't know about the original title sweep because there was just an unimpressive title card insert - and that was such a destructive loss from the get go when I finally saw the film in its restored original version. The 6-track stereo remix has since stuck with most re-releases, and I've tended to stick with that over the original monaural mix, but visually, GONE WITH THE WIND is spectacular enough without any visual enhancements, although if they put it on 4k UHD, it'll get the HDR/Dolby Vision treatment to give the Technicolor more vibrancy.
@TheVid54 I definitely agree with you about the movie being released in 4K UHD. Both my wife and I keep waiting for it to come out in the format. However, I always prefer original sound mixes to films, in this case, mono. Anytime we watch the film, we put the original mono mix on. In regards to sound remixes, I appreciate that when they released the Wizard of Oz in its gorgeous 4K UHD release that the remix was not loud and spread out too much, but I do wish that, like the Blu-Ray disc, they gave the option to use the original mono mix on the 4K disc. It seems like lately, whenever they release mono films in 4K UHD with a remixed soundtrack, very rarely do the 4K discs have the original mono option, and tend to only make it available on the Blu-Ray disc (except for both the Blu-Ray and 4K discs for the film The Sting, which has a terrible updated soundtrack, which even affected the music tracks). Back to GWTW; obviously, I prefer it in its original 1.33 ratio, but I still wouldn't mind seeing the 70mm re-release. I just discovered that when it was first re-released in 1954, it was cropped in a 1.75 ratio.
I learned a lot about aspect ratios. One of the questions I had was how often a 2:1 ratio was used? I now understand that 2:1 was a compromise screen size that allowed 4 panels to mask for a wider or taller pic, but how often was that chosen for an aspect ratio by a studio?
Universal-International had been the primary advocate for that ratio from June 1953 until the late 1950s when they finally adopted 1.85 as per industry standard.
Loving your series for the info straight from the mouths of people doing the actual work! Aspect ratio is one issue that I have been following for decades, along with my interest in restoration and movies in general. Somehow, as I learned about resources for info, I managed to miss 3D Film Archive, so thank you for bringing it to our attention! I never knew that framing was THAT malleable!
Another fantastic episode with a couple of great guests - thanks guys! And don't worry, you can never be too nerdy or technical for this audience. Funny story: I remember when 2001 had its British TV premiere, and the BBC in its infinite wisdom decided to show the majority of the film pan-and-scan but letterbox the space sequences. They also infamously decided to put fake stars in the black bars thus completely ruining those gorgeous effects shots. I bet they got an angry phone call from Stanley Kubrick that night. As someone with a dedicated home cinema and a 2.35:1 projection screen, the modern trend for variable aspect ratios drives me nuts (thanks a lot Christopher Nolan). If the presentation varies between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 aspect ratios, I just mask to 'Scope to retain my widescreen experience. I was delighted that the new 4K release of Galaxy Quest retains its imaginative use of changing aspect ratios (going from 1.37 to 1.85 to 2.35:1 as the film progresses) within a 2.35:1 framing.
Thanks for describing the changing ratios in Galaxy Quest (I might just spring for it); I have the same issue with changing aspect ratios in my home theater.
@@StephenWithers1 Stephen, always great to hear from you! I love that 2001 story! You know that must have incensed Stanley Kubrick. Glad you gave the Galaxy Quest 4K a shout out. That was one of our favorite discs of last year. -A
I am thrilled beyond belief to hear that Money From Home is at long last going to get a 3D Blu-ray release. When I was chatting with Bob Furmanek several years ago in the lobby of The Film Forum prior to a 3D screening of Sangaree (with Arlene Dahl in attendance) he told me that the likelihood of this ever happening was remote as Paramount had no interest in such a project and that the window for such a restoration occurring was rapidly closing. One should never give up hope.
We are so excited to see it coming out too! It has been a real labor of love at the 3D Film Archive. They are really pulling off the impossible. People like you prove that there is an appetite for films like Money From Home. -A
This complex 4K restoration would never have happened if Kino Lorber had not secured the home video license after the one with Olive had lapsed, and if the incredible team at Paramount Pictures’ Archive had not agreed to absorb the cost of scanning 72 reels (52,000 feet) of 35mm Technicolor camera negative. That was truly a game changer, and we are forever grateful to them!
@@3DFILMARCHIVE Thank you so much for the perseverance and the magnificent work! Next on my wishlist are 3D Blu-rays of The French Line and Second Chance.
I remember seeing a video by noodle that cover aspect ratios. Loved seeing professionals tackle the topic and give interesting examples like the 14:20 north by northwest and 9:29 pee wee Herman’s open matte versions.
I love seeing behind the curtains of how projectionists work. Framing trees are new to me! Always thought that would be a cool job, but I guess it also involves watching bad movies repeatedly.
Or some really good ones too. It all seems a lifetime away now, but I can attest to that since back in the mid 60s, I worked my first part time job, two years plus as a theatre usher/marquee changer, at the princely student wage of 85 cents / hr. The marquee letters were die cast metal and because the marquee was backed up to the building with a triangular sidewalk over hang, it required two sets of letter changes and a lot of exhibition there, were double bills. At age 15 to 17 yrs, that task was physically demanding, especially during Ontario winters. That theatre was my weekend haunt growing up and every now and then, a re-release title like "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea", "The Ten Commandments" or "The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad" would play there. From time to time the projectionist --a meticulous man, but a chain smoker, would invite me into his booth between shows, where he revealed the arc-lit secrets of his trade and sometimes gave me a bottled Coke. I remember next to the stacked old copies of Box Office, the one of union bulletins and a binder of maintenance logs, he showed me the custom neoprene-cushioned, velvet lined wooden case he'd built for storage of various scope lenses, regular Academy frame ones and aperture masks too. I didn't understand it all, but it was almost like taking a crash course in film projection, rewinding the reels, splicing a film, and what to do in the case of a projector malfunction when a film melt happened. As a film fan, it was all interesting to me, but as an employee, it gave me information which would prove indispensable when projection issues occurred and patrons asked questions.
Great discussion and information. I saw the 1968 release of gone with the wind in my hometown in Burbank California. I was 15 years old. The magnolia theater, which is long gone. I remember seeing the tops of heads cropped off to make it wide screen. And why they bothered to put it into four track or six track stereo sound was beyond me. The sound was terrible. Oh well. You know, I have a question for you two. 1962, The Music Man. I’ve long believed it was a 2.20:1 aspect ratio. I just googled it, and found three different aspect ratios attributed to the film! The one I already mentioned, 2.39:1, and 2.40:1. Any ideas on this?
There’s a ton of wrong information online, so don’t accept any of that as gospel. Offhand, I don’t know the precise ratio during principal photography.
It was filmed in Technirama which was usually framed at 2.2:1. GYPSY and SLEEPING BEAUTY were also filmed in Technirama. I think the Blu-rays of those films are framed at that aspect ratio.
Off the top of my head here's some movies that come to mind where I prefer a 4x3 ratio over a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. All of these contain extra footage on top & bottom in 4x3 while offering little or nothing on the sides in widescreen versions & instead cut a noticeable amount of picture information off the top & bottom. "A Hard Days Night"-1964 (as mentioned) "Humongous"-1982 "Terminator 2"-1991 "Reptilicus"-1961 "Dazed & Confused"-1993 "The Killer Shrews"-1959 "Horror High"-1973 "The Hidden"-1987. Nice & informative discussion.
Yes, and some theaters even showed "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" without proper matting! How do I know? Because I saw it, myself, when it was first released! And, no, that's not the only example I could give: it happened with "Brokeback Mountain", too, with a mike boom drooping into one shot.
I remember, during the night drive sequence, seeing the road signs running on a track on a VHS release of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure as a kid and being very confused. As I got older and started understanding about open-matte prints, then I understood. Even with the image properly framed, it's not a convincing effect, but the film isn't meant to be taken seriously, so I forgive the effect.
I’ve been watching Rosanne, and other 80s shows on TV. They are cropping all the old series to an HD ratio. The screen is filled now with extreme closeups, and odd cropping. It’s really jarring… especially for comedies
We completely agree. We watch a lot of Frasier and the new framing has made for some uncomfortable composition. Particularly with people seated on the couch while another person is standing. -A
Nothing pisses me off more (Except for colorization) than when they put a classic vintage 4x3 ratio movie on TV and stretch it out to fit the 16x9 screens. When they do screen it in its correct ratio, young people complain that half the picture is missing and can't understand why. Okay, I vented and feel better now.
Why weren’t hard matted theatrical prints used more often? Seems like that would have made projection less complicated. Could you not get a hard matted print unless you shot the film hard matted?
Television. It was accepted in the late ‘50s that hard matting would be beneficial for projection, but once television sales of new films from studios became obviously a trend, less-intrusive hard-matting (or none at all) was adopted. Usually the matte corresponds to about 1.66-1, because that roughly is the “action safe” area of an NTSC broadcast.
I always wished dvd or Blurays would be full frame and in the menu you could select a wider aspect ratio. Basically just adding black borders that mask the picture 😊
The DVD spec had the Angle feature that could technically do that. I suppose it could have worked ok for 1.85 or 1.66 but obviously for anamorphic movies this would not have worked, and it wouldn’t have worked for Super 35 movies since the 2.35 image wasn’t necessarily a standard crop of the full frame image
I know of at least three Australian movies from the 1970's that were shot and released in 1.37 but are now only available cut to 16:9 for modern TV's and I'm not happy about it because these are films I like and .... well .... they're cut!
Here are examples of Lil Abner in Vistavision shown on tv open matte. Boom mikes, lights and tops of sets can be seen. ruclips.net/video/y2M5bIe4WCc/видео.htmlsi=EeIHFl6lqmGDAZUq
I LOVE “Perf Damage”. The 3D episode didn’t bore me for a second! Maybe that’s why I got to be a Lifetime Member of SMPTE Hollywood…
Another amazing episode. I love you guys. Thank you so much for sharing these amazing stories and putting them out for us to enjoy
Absolutely fascinating podcast
Both the guests and moderators are awesome.
You guys are great, congratulations and keep on the great work
Bob and Jack are restoration rock stars who deserve cheers from everyone who loves movies. Thank you for giving these sensitive, meticulous preservationists such a worthy showcase.
Amen to that Steven. Charlotte and I cannot sing their praises enough, and we are happy to give them a forum to speak about their work. Not to mention that they are all around great guys. -A
Bob and Jack are fantastic!! Great discussion.
What a great one! So informative. Brings back a lot of memories of my oldest brother as a Union Projectionist in 1970. Sometimes theater management would allow my to watch him work. Three carbon burner beauties. To this day, my wife gives me that eye roll when we are watching a movie and I start counting quietly down when that first reel cue appears. When " It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World " came to television. Wow! Talk about major panning.
My older brothers had seen Mad World in a theater and were always talking about how great it was. I saw it for the first time on network television, and while I enjoyed it, I didn’t quite get what all the excitement had been about. Then I saw a 35mm Technicolor print on a 50 foot screen with about 500 people in the theater. Talk about a difference!
@@3DFILMARCHIVE Agreed!. I saw it when it first came out at the " Lyric Theater ".It was amazing on the big screen. With a full theater, the laughter at times was almost deafening.
Wow almost sounds like the big gun company's were battling for their format which didn't help! And it's great to see Bob and I have to say "you R unbelievable" my friend thanks for saving as much as U can in R 3-D world 🌎 😎
I'm 68 now and have had a special interest in movies since I was a youngster. I've lived through a lot of the movie history you discuss on this podcast, and amazingly, I find there is still more for me to learn about it.
This is a great discussion. This also comes into with modern movies like the MCU movies that are “Imax Enhanced”. The so called Imax version of Endgame has the book mic dipping into the top of the frame towards the end.
Keep talking about aspect ratios, please.
When I was a teenager, I saw Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. My friend and I started noticing par cans in shots. There were small lamps in the car scene when Candy and Martin. And, hilariously, the sentimental scene at home, par cans everywhere.
I'd never known why that was until now. Thank you so much.
I've been a fan of the 3D Film Archive for years now, and have collected all their blu-ray releases from the beginning. I still project at home in 3D on a 120-inch screen and am so grateful to Bob Furmanek and his team for their outstanding work in reviving the 1950's 3-D classics. He also has a terrific site for the early years of stereophonic sound once widescreen really took off with 3D and wide-gauge film presentations. I have a terrific BFI blu-ray special edition of SHANE which includes all the widescreen and stereo experimentation done on that picture's release, which was originally shot for full-frame exhibition, before Paramount decided to exhibit it as a widescreen release. This was a great video. I could listen to these guys for hours.
@@TheVid54 We also collected the 3D Film Archive releases way before we met Bob Furmanek. In fact, when we first moved to Los Angeles, we attended one of his 3D Film Festivals at The Egyptian Theater. But we did not really “meet” Bob until he reached out to us after our 3D episodes of Perf Damage (audio only). It is always refreshing when the man lives up to his reputation. Bob is a great guy!
Loaded with lots of info! As a veteran telecine colorist, most of the epics I worked on were transferred "on the fly".including pan&san, scene to scene correction,sometimes make an edit and keep going. The producers/distributors just wanted a master to sell to TV syndication.Fun fact,Mr. Lewis was a very astute film producer.One of the first to have a video tap on the camera to view takes. Paramount gave him full support. I think "Errand Boy" was the first.Life magazine had a spread on Adolp Zucker's new Wonder Kid.
Here in the UK back in the 1950's to the 1980's in cinemas where I worked if you ran a film showing the boom mics and the top of sets the projectionist could find themselves in trouble because it showed they had not had a rehearsal of the film. In cinemas with 70mm we could have top and side masking. In my home cinema I have 4 aspect ratios for 35mm (4 By 3, 1.85:1, optical Cinemascope and Magnetic Cinemascope) The 70mm screen is set for Todd-AO and D-150.
That was wonderful. I really enjoyed that episode, especially listening to Bob Furmanek and Jack Theakston. Your love of film shows through.
Thanks for another great video, a real treat to listen to Bob & Jack discuss this subject with you. To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott (rather badly, I'm afraid): What a tangled web of woes, when first we practice to compose...
Guys, best episode yet. Really interesting. Keep up the great work.
A wonderful episode! The guests are very knowledgeable and l've loved their website over the years! In fairness to 80's and before home pan and scan, TVs were much, much smaller back then, a 25 inch was the upper size and most watched 13 or 19 inch TVs. This left especially cinemascope letter boxed removing almost half the available area for the image.
Now we can do much better and I would never want p&s in place of a DoP or director's composition.
Thank you for another great, educational video! Does anyone else think that Jack looks a lot like a young Paul Giamatti? 😆
Great episode with Bob and Jack. Always love hearing from those guys - they are full of crazy amounts of film knowledge. BTW, I just learned about the Perf Damage podcast today, and I really enjoyed it. I will be subscribing as well as going back to earlier episodes. Thanks!
Thank you for tuning in! -A
What a terrific interview-! Thanks so much to Bob and Jack for sharing their time.
I have only one point to add, which pertains to what was referred to as the "Framing Tree". The correct name for that indicator is the *Framing Index* - and there were actually _Two_ different styles. The style seen in the film clip has two horizontal lines, indicating the framing positions for 1.66 & 1.85. The second style consisted of _three_ horizontal lines representing framing for: 1.66; 1.85 & 2.0 - the marks for 1.66 & 2.0 extending off the vertical line in the right hand direction; and the 1.85 mark extending leftward from the vertical line.
I knew someone would catch that!! All the scans I had on my local hard drive didn’t have the “full tree” so I just used what I had. I tried faking the missing line in, but it looked weird so I just went without. Thanks for providing the clarity for the viewers here! -C
@@PerfDamagePodcast Amen and I realized after it went live that I have a great visual of the Framing Index. Sigh
I remember seeing an open matte screening of The Searchers around 1980 at an old theater and I had no idea at the time what was going on, and I held it against the film at first. Later I learned that the projectionist was supposed to mask it.
Just got home from work and this popped up. A happy early birthday present to me
Love you guys. Hope you are doing okay from the fire there
Happy Birthday Bryan!
@@PerfDamagePodcast ❤❤❤
Fantastic episode, thanks.
Thank you for this, lots of information, and new things learnt.
37:04 In visual arts classes, I was always taught about the "visual center" actually being on the upper third line of any image, not dead center (supposed to be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, as our eye/brain would otherwise "push down" what's in dead center). Perhaps that's what the studios were thinking when they put the titles higher than usual?
That was only done on standard ratio titles that were on the shelf and shown widescreen post-June 1953. I don't believe they were thinking of anything other than having projectionists favor the upper portion of the image to eliminate head clipping in widescreen presentations.
This discussion was absolutely fantastic and VERY informative - thank you !!
I love that you guys brought up the 70mm re-release of Gone With The Wind. I wondered for the longest time what the film would look like being cropped so drastically, and I got a hint from some black and white still photos of the blown-up image in the book Pictorial History of Gone With The Wind. As crazy as it sounds, I have wanted, and still do want to see that film in its 70mm re-release, and every time a big Blu-Ray anniversary release of the film occurred, I would check to see if they included the release as a bonus, but it still has not happened. Sadly, the film has been a big source of controversy lately, so God knows if the 70mm release will ever see the light of day.
The first time I saw GONE WITH THE WIND was that 1968 70mm blow-up, so the 2:20 to 1 aspect ratio wasn't as disturbing as it could have been for me. The funny thing was I didn't know about the original title sweep because there was just an unimpressive title card insert - and that was such a destructive loss from the get go when I finally saw the film in its restored original version. The 6-track stereo remix has since stuck with most re-releases, and I've tended to stick with that over the original monaural mix, but visually, GONE WITH THE WIND is spectacular enough without any visual enhancements, although if they put it on 4k UHD, it'll get the HDR/Dolby Vision treatment to give the Technicolor more vibrancy.
@TheVid54 I definitely agree with you about the movie being released in 4K UHD. Both my wife and I keep waiting for it to come out in the format. However, I always prefer original sound mixes to films, in this case, mono. Anytime we watch the film, we put the original mono mix on. In regards to sound remixes, I appreciate that when they released the Wizard of Oz in its gorgeous 4K UHD release that the remix was not loud and spread out too much, but I do wish that, like the Blu-Ray disc, they gave the option to use the original mono mix on the 4K disc. It seems like lately, whenever they release mono films in 4K UHD with a remixed soundtrack, very rarely do the 4K discs have the original mono option, and tend to only make it available on the Blu-Ray disc (except for both the Blu-Ray and 4K discs for the film The Sting, which has a terrible updated soundtrack, which even affected the music tracks).
Back to GWTW; obviously, I prefer it in its original 1.33 ratio, but I still wouldn't mind seeing the 70mm re-release.
I just discovered that when it was first re-released in 1954, it was cropped in a 1.75 ratio.
Another great and informative video! Thanks!
I learned a lot about aspect ratios. One of the questions I had was how often a 2:1 ratio was used? I now understand that 2:1 was a compromise screen size that allowed 4 panels to mask for a wider or taller pic, but how often was that chosen for an aspect ratio by a studio?
Universal-International had been the primary advocate for that ratio from June 1953 until the late 1950s when they finally adopted 1.85 as per industry standard.
Loving your series for the info straight from the mouths of people doing the actual work! Aspect ratio is one issue that I have been following for decades, along with my interest in restoration and movies in general. Somehow, as I learned about resources for info, I managed to miss 3D Film Archive, so thank you for bringing it to our attention! I never knew that framing was THAT malleable!
Another fantastic episode with a couple of great guests - thanks guys! And don't worry, you can never be too nerdy or technical for this audience. Funny story: I remember when 2001 had its British TV premiere, and the BBC in its infinite wisdom decided to show the majority of the film pan-and-scan but letterbox the space sequences. They also infamously decided to put fake stars in the black bars thus completely ruining those gorgeous effects shots. I bet they got an angry phone call from Stanley Kubrick that night. As someone with a dedicated home cinema and a 2.35:1 projection screen, the modern trend for variable aspect ratios drives me nuts (thanks a lot Christopher Nolan). If the presentation varies between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 aspect ratios, I just mask to 'Scope to retain my widescreen experience. I was delighted that the new 4K release of Galaxy Quest retains its imaginative use of changing aspect ratios (going from 1.37 to 1.85 to 2.35:1 as the film progresses) within a 2.35:1 framing.
Thanks for describing the changing ratios in Galaxy Quest (I might just spring for it); I have the same issue with changing aspect ratios in my home theater.
@@StephenWithers1 Stephen, always great to hear from you! I love that 2001 story! You know that must have incensed Stanley Kubrick. Glad you gave the Galaxy Quest 4K a shout out. That was one of our favorite discs of last year. -A
I am thrilled beyond belief to hear that Money From Home is at long last going to get a 3D Blu-ray release. When I was chatting with Bob Furmanek several years ago in the lobby of The Film Forum prior to a 3D screening of Sangaree (with Arlene Dahl in attendance) he told me that the likelihood of this ever happening was remote as Paramount had no interest in such a project and that the window for such a restoration occurring was rapidly closing. One should never give up hope.
We are so excited to see it coming out too! It has been a real labor of love at the 3D Film Archive. They are really pulling off the impossible. People like you prove that there is an appetite for films like Money From Home. -A
This complex 4K restoration would never have happened if Kino Lorber had not secured the home video license after the one with Olive had lapsed, and if the incredible team at Paramount Pictures’ Archive had not agreed to absorb the cost of scanning 72 reels (52,000 feet) of 35mm Technicolor camera negative. That was truly a game changer, and we are forever grateful to them!
@@3DFILMARCHIVE Thank you so much for the perseverance and the magnificent work! Next on my wishlist are 3D Blu-rays of The French Line and Second Chance.
Same here. Those are in the vaults at Warner Brothers.
I remember seeing a video by noodle that cover aspect ratios. Loved seeing professionals tackle the topic and give interesting examples like the 14:20 north by northwest and 9:29 pee wee Herman’s open matte versions.
Apart from the invaluable information given here: Love your shirt, Bob!
Thank you, I appreciate that. You have excellent taste! 🙂
I love seeing behind the curtains of how projectionists work. Framing trees are new to me! Always thought that would be a cool job, but I guess it also involves watching bad movies repeatedly.
Or some really good ones too. It all seems a lifetime away now, but I can attest to that since back in the mid 60s, I worked my first part time job, two years plus as a theatre usher/marquee changer, at the princely student wage of 85 cents / hr. The marquee letters were die cast metal and because the marquee was backed up to the building with a triangular sidewalk over hang, it required two sets of letter changes and a lot of exhibition there, were double bills. At age 15 to 17 yrs, that task was physically demanding, especially during Ontario winters. That theatre was my weekend haunt growing up and every now and then, a re-release title like "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea", "The Ten Commandments" or "The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad" would play there.
From time to time the projectionist --a meticulous man, but a chain smoker, would invite me into his booth between shows, where he revealed the arc-lit secrets of his trade and sometimes gave me a bottled Coke. I remember next to the stacked old copies of Box Office, the one of union bulletins and a binder of maintenance logs, he showed me the custom neoprene-cushioned, velvet lined wooden case he'd built for storage of various scope lenses, regular Academy frame ones and aperture masks too. I didn't understand it all, but it was almost like taking a crash course in film projection, rewinding the reels, splicing a film, and what to do in the case of a projector malfunction when a film melt happened. As a film fan, it was all interesting to me, but as an employee, it gave me information which would prove indispensable when projection issues occurred and patrons asked questions.
Great discussion and information. I saw the 1968 release of gone with the wind in my hometown in Burbank California. I was 15 years old. The magnolia theater, which is long gone. I remember seeing the tops of heads cropped off to make it wide screen. And why they bothered to put it into four track or six track stereo sound was beyond me. The sound was terrible. Oh well. You know, I have a question for you two. 1962, The Music Man. I’ve long believed it was a 2.20:1 aspect ratio. I just googled it, and found three different aspect ratios attributed to the film! The one I already mentioned, 2.39:1, and 2.40:1. Any ideas on this?
There’s a ton of wrong information online, so don’t accept any of that as gospel. Offhand, I don’t know the precise ratio during principal photography.
It was filmed in Technirama which was usually framed at 2.2:1. GYPSY and SLEEPING BEAUTY were also filmed in Technirama. I think the Blu-rays of those films are framed at that aspect ratio.
Off the top of my head here's some movies that come to mind where I prefer a 4x3 ratio over a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. All of these contain extra footage on top & bottom in 4x3 while offering little or nothing on the sides in widescreen versions & instead cut a noticeable amount of picture information off the top & bottom. "A Hard Days Night"-1964 (as mentioned) "Humongous"-1982 "Terminator 2"-1991 "Reptilicus"-1961 "Dazed & Confused"-1993 "The Killer Shrews"-1959 "Horror High"-1973 "The Hidden"-1987. Nice & informative discussion.
Yes, and some theaters even showed "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" without proper matting! How do I know? Because I saw it, myself, when it was first released! And, no, that's not the only example I could give: it happened with "Brokeback Mountain", too, with a mike boom drooping into one shot.
I remember, during the night drive sequence, seeing the road signs running on a track on a VHS release of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure as a kid and being very confused. As I got older and started understanding about open-matte prints, then I understood. Even with the image properly framed, it's not a convincing effect, but the film isn't meant to be taken seriously, so I forgive the effect.
I’ve been watching Rosanne, and other 80s shows on TV. They are cropping all the old series to an HD ratio. The screen is filled now with extreme closeups, and odd cropping. It’s really jarring… especially for comedies
We completely agree. We watch a lot of Frasier and the new framing has made for some uncomfortable composition. Particularly with people seated on the couch while another person is standing. -A
😮😢
thanks
Nothing pisses me off more (Except for colorization) than when they put a classic vintage 4x3 ratio movie on TV and stretch it out to fit the 16x9 screens. When they do screen it in its correct ratio, young people complain that half the picture is missing and can't understand why. Okay, I vented and feel better now.
We agree! Horizontal stretch is the worst. We also hate when they zoom in on a 4 x 3 image to fill the screen. -A
It's TV but the Star Trek remaster doesn't do a bad job though obviously there's no good reason to have done it! @@PerfDamagePodcast
Could you watch a 1.85 or 1.78 film in scope 2.39?
Why weren’t hard matted theatrical prints used more often? Seems like that would have made projection less complicated. Could you not get a hard matted print unless you shot the film hard matted?
Television. It was accepted in the late ‘50s that hard matting would be beneficial for projection, but once television sales of new films from studios became obviously a trend, less-intrusive hard-matting (or none at all) was adopted. Usually the matte corresponds to about 1.66-1, because that roughly is the “action safe” area of an NTSC broadcast.
I always wished dvd or Blurays would be full frame and in the menu you could select a wider aspect ratio. Basically just adding black borders that mask the picture 😊
The DVD spec had the Angle feature that could technically do that. I suppose it could have worked ok for 1.85 or 1.66 but obviously for anamorphic movies this would not have worked, and it wouldn’t have worked for Super 35 movies since the 2.35 image wasn’t necessarily a standard crop of the full frame image
I know of at least three Australian movies from the 1970's that were shot and released in 1.37 but are now only available cut to 16:9 for modern TV's and I'm not happy about it because these are films I like and .... well .... they're cut!
Here are examples of Lil Abner in Vistavision shown on tv open matte. Boom mikes, lights and tops of sets can be seen. ruclips.net/video/y2M5bIe4WCc/видео.htmlsi=EeIHFl6lqmGDAZUq