• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Channels Showing Full Widescreen Films
<<
<
74 of 136
>>
>
Libretio
26-05-2012
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“You are quite mad. And thankfully, in the minority. 16:9 prints are being phased out as they get new HD masters of 2.35:1 (and similar) ratio films.”

I was going to post something witty in response to gamersxchange, but you and mwardy got there first - and better.
DVDfever
26-05-2012
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“I was going to post something witty in response to gamersxchange, but you and mwardy got there first - and better.”



My favourite line which I read on a forum elsewhere was when someone replied: "Please pack up your set and return it back to the shop from which you bought it, for a full refund, because you are too stupid to own a TV."

BTW, BBC2 are showing 2004's Merchant of Venice in 16:9. IMDB lists it as shot in Super 35, but this looks like it's cropped more often than open matte.
mike65
26-05-2012
Originally Posted by gamersxchange:
“
When i watch a film i don't want to see black bars - it detracts from the viewing experience (especially in outdoor scenes).
]”

Do what I do, watch telly in the dark (and when the sun is still out I watch with dark glasses - works every time! ).
Libretio
26-05-2012
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“BTW, BBC2 are showing 2004's Merchant of Venice in 16:9.”

Surprise, surprise! - C5 screened the mouldie oldie MAN FROM GOD'S COUNTRY at 2.35:1 this afternoon. Not sure that one's even available on DVD (at any ratio!).
d'@ve
26-05-2012
Originally Posted by mwardy:
“Because they were designed to be seen at the cinema?”

Ideally yes but TV isn't cinema and at home, many people are happy with 16:9 crops because they really do like to see their screen filled instead of having to squint at smaller figures on the screen. Most people's screens aren't so big that it doesn't make a significant difference to them.

Originally Posted by mwardy:
“Having large chunks chopped off the image detracts vastly more IMO. Have a look at these. Click on the links in that post, wait for the pictures to finish downloading, then roll the mouse over the image to see what you are missing with a 16:9 crop:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...mment_99843863”

Careful pan-scanning can retain very nearly all of the main action shots, albeit nearer the screen edge than one would like, and sometimes right ON the edge.

Assassin: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...4/29023617.jpg

Two shot: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...4/a2eb59df.jpg

In an extreme situation they could zoom briefly out a bit, to bring the action back into shot (which would of course look a bit odd but might be the least worst option in extremis)

Originally Posted by mwardy:
“You'll find that far from everyone wants to see the compromised version because it happens to fill their TV screen. And as you can zoom in a 2.35 image if you really want to and get the effect you are looking for, why insist on everyone else having the choice to see the film properly taken away from them?”

Zooming in at home doesn't get you pan-scan and is therefore the worst of all worlds as it loses you important action somewhat randomly..

Many people do like to have their screen filled so whatever the TV people do, they will displease a section of their audience. I suspect that they will just continue to try and balance the two sets of interests as well as possible so nobody wins and nobody loses.

Myself? Mostly, I prefer to watch in original aspect ratio but I remain flexible.
theonlyweeman
27-05-2012
The Matrix was cropped to 16:9 as per usual, except for the credits. The film started nearly 5 mins late, so I nearly missed the end off the recording
mwardy
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Careful pan-scanning can retain very nearly all of the main action shots, albeit nearer the screen edge than one would like, and sometimes right ON the edge.”

Yes, you can do that, but first, they didn't, and second, as you are conceding, it looks terrible (for the second example at least).

Assassin: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...4/29023617.jpg

Two shot: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...4/a2eb59df.jpg

The other more subtle thing of course is that it's not just about capturing action but about composition. If you look at the third example in my link it's a close up of Gary Sinise, way off to the side of the frame. That's a lot of empty space, and it matters. It's arresting and dynamic. The cropped version just looks ordinary at best, and to me a bit naff.

It's the same with all of them really. The two shot looks unbalanced and silly because they are too close to the edge, so the emphasis is on the blank space between them rather than the metaphorical distance that has just opened up between the two characters (with **SPOILER ALERT** Sinise just having been revealed as the bad guy rather than Cage's best mate). I think they were probably right not to try, though the shot is less meaningful as a result.

For the assassin falling through the window, yes, you can pan over to include it (though they didn't, even though it's a key moment so the shot becomes completely pointless--which shows professional p&s isn't to be trusted either). But even if you do that, the shooter now fills up a larger percentage of the screen, when the point is, in a film which is all about people (including the audience) not spotting things right in front of them, that he should actually be quite hard to spot--harder than in the cropped version-- the first time around.

The fact is that De Palma is an expert directory who uses the potential of widescreen to the full. Any cropping just messes up the creative decisions he's taken.

Of course there are films effectively shot 16:9 safe, by safe directors. For them who cares?--but not here. And of course there are super 35 films where the crop shows more information, but the issues of composition still affect those.

Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“In an extreme situation they could zoom briefly out a bit, to bring the action back into shot (which would of course look a bit odd but might be the least worst option in extremis)”

Actually, they do have to give in and switch to the scope ratio at one point in Snake Eyes. It's jarring.

Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Zooming in at home doesn't get you pan-scan and is therefore the worst of all worlds as it loses you important action somewhat randomly..”

If someone is dvding cropped films because they look better to them, I think it's safe to assume they are not fussed about such matters.

Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Many people do like to have their screen filled so whatever the TV people do, they will displease a section of their audience. I suspect that they will just continue to try and balance the two sets of interests as well as possible so nobody wins and nobody loses.

Myself? Mostly, I prefer to watch in original aspect ratio but I remain flexible.”

I see you are trying to find a middle way but IMHO when it comes down to it one set of people is right and one is wrong. I don't want the director's choices compromised (in both senses) to placate people who literally don't know how to watch films. So showing OAR and giving the zoom option to those who can't be bothered to learn is always the best solution.
d'@ve
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by mwardy:
“I see you are trying to find a middle way but IMHO when it comes down to it one set of people is right and one is wrong. I don't want the director's choices compromised (in both senses) to placate people who literally don't know how to watch films. So showing OAR and giving the zoom option to those who can't be bothered to learn is always the best solution. ”

Yeah, sometimes 'needs must'. With several people in my room we can't all sit close enough to the screen to see all the details on some 2:35 films so I have to zoom in at times (sat there, remote control in hand!). My eyes aren't what they once were. Viewing distance can definitely be an overriding factor at times for me (though not, it seems, for some!).

With a 60 inch screen I'd probably stay in OAR all the time and so, I suspect, would many more others
Libretio
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Ideally yes but TV isn't cinema and at home, many people are happy with 16:9 crops because they really do like to see their screen filled instead of having to squint at smaller figures on the screen. Most people's screens aren't so big that it doesn't make a significant difference to them.”

Just to add to what mwardy and others have said on this point: I have to say, I don't buy the argument that OAR scope movies on 16:9 TV's renders a significantly smaller image, at least not enough to cause viewer discomfort. I know people in my own family who couldn't give a flying hoot how their films are presented on TV, and they completely accept those black bars at top and bottom during scope films, because they're too small to make enough of a difference to their viewing. The fact that they're getting the entire image is neither here nor there to them - and that's as it should be, I suppose, so long as they are getting the complete image.

It would only be a problem on TV's smaller than, say, 32 inches, but broadcasters can't be held to that kind of standard when the vast majority of TV's are either 32 inches or bigger. The reason OAR has become prevalent now is because 4:3 is in the minority, so TV companies feel it's OK to show movies as originally intended because the 16:9 screen is a perfectly viable compromise.

I appreciate that you're just playing devil's advocate, of course, but I don't accept the premise that scope movies on 16:9 TV's render that much of a compromise. And I am unanimous in that...
d'@ve
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“It would only be a problem on TV's smaller than, say, 32 inches, but broadcasters can't be held to that kind of standard when the vast majority of TV's are either 32 inches or bigger. The reason OAR has become prevalent now is because 4:3 is in the minority, so TV companies feel it's OK to show movies as originally intended because the 16:9 screen is a perfectly viable compromise.

I appreciate that you're just playing devil's advocate, of course, but I don't accept the premise that scope movies on 16:9 TV's render that much of a compromise. And I am unanimous in that...”

Yes it's a viable compromise alright as time moves on (and I wish they'd drop 4:3 safe areas for TV generally!) but very popular 32 and 42 inch sets are already on the "too small" margin for 16:9 full screen in rooms like my own and my daughter's houses - especially hers. Anything below 55 inch sets are too small to watch 21:9 films comfortable at our normal viewing distances and we don't like shifting furniture around. As we only have 42 inch sets, it can be a matter of trading one uncomfortableness against another!

Roll on our next sets, they will be 55 - 60 inches and will work well for us on 21:9 material (when they become affordable!).
DVDfever
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“many people are happy with 16:9 crops because they really do like to see their screen filled instead of having to squint at smaller figures on the screen.”

Only idiots *purposely* choose that option.

Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“With a 60 inch screen I'd probably stay in OAR all the time and so, I suspect, would many more others”

I've watched 2.35:1 films on a 14" portable when I was younger. The framing was the most important thing.

Yes, you wouldn't get perfect detail but your brain can compensate for that, as you've got the whole image present.

Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Roll on our next sets, they will be 55 - 60 inches and will work well for us on 21:9 material (when they become affordable!).”

If I have a set that's bigger than 37", I won't be able to fit it on my stand, and it'll be too big for where I sit.
DVDfever
27-05-2012
As an aside, since this is where I might find the answer, does anyone know why Wes Anderson has decided to film Moonrise Kingdom in 1.85:1, when he normally makes a splended job of 2.35:1 anamorphic Panavision?
Legerdemain
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“As an aside, since this is where I might find the answer, does anyone know why Wes Anderson has decided to film Moonrise Kingdom in 1.85:1, when he normally makes a splended job of 2.35:1 anamorphic Panavision?”

This article may be interesting to you:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/05/c...nrise-kingdom/

I've been looking into this a bit lately because of Joss Whedon's decision to shoot Avengers in 1:85:1, and it seems to be a similar reason - vertical action.

ETA When I saw the Avengers I could see why. The varying heights of the team, and the climax I think worked better in 1:85.
DVDfever
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by Legerdemain:
“This article may be interesting to you:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/05/c...nrise-kingdom/”

Thanks very much for that. Will have a good read later. It is still disappointing, though, as when I saw clips of it, it looked like people were falling off the edges of the screen and I thought, "That'll look amazing in 2.35:1" (sigh)

Quote:
“I've been looking into this a bit lately because of Joss Whedon's decision to shoot Avengers in 1:85:1, and it seems to be a similar reason - vertical action.

ETA When I saw the Avengers I could see why. The varying heights of the team, and the climax I think worked better in 1:85.”

Haven't seen that - doesn't really grab me - but I was surprised to learn of the ratio given how all/most of the superheroes in it come from films that were in 2.35:1.
Libretio
27-05-2012
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Yes it's a viable compromise alright as time moves on (and I wish they'd drop 4:3 safe areas for TV generally!) but very popular 32 and 42 inch sets are already on the "too small" margin for 16:9 full screen in rooms like my own and my daughter's houses - especially hers. Anything below 55 inch sets are too small to watch 21:9 films comfortable at our normal viewing distances and we don't like shifting furniture around. As we only have 42 inch sets, it can be a matter of trading one uncomfortableness against another!”

If you live in big houses (or even small houses with big rooms!), that can make a difference. In which case, 32-inches might not be enough (as the bishop said to the actress). But most people live in fairly modest accommodation, so it isn't really an issue. However, I do see the point you're making.
Libretio
28-05-2012
(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)

Scope and 3-D films released on UK Blu-ray (28 May - 3 June):

• THE AWAKENING (2011)
• CARJACKED (2011) [HD]
• CATCH .44 (2011) [Hawk Scope (HD)]
• CHINATOWN (1974) [Panavision]
• THE HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY [Quella Villa Accanto al Cimitero] (1981) [Techniscope]
• IRON SKY (2012)
• JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (2012) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE (2011)
• THE WARRIOR (2001)


Scope and 3-D films released on US Blu-ray (29 May - 4 June):

• THE AGGRESSION SCALE (2012) [HD]
• CORIOLANUS (2011) [Techniscope]
• GONE (2012)
• GOON (2011)
• JOYFUL NOISE (2011)
• MAN ON A LEDGE (2012)
• THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES (1976) [Panavision]
• TELLING LIES IN AMERICA (1997)
• WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN (2011) [Panavision]
PowerJC
28-05-2012
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“The Matrix was cropped to 16:9 as per usual, except for the credits. The film started nearly 5 mins late, so I nearly missed the end off the recording”

The matrix was shot in super35, so it is acutally opened up at the top and bottom when shown on tv. So not as bad as being cropped; but not OAR.
Libretio
28-05-2012
Originally Posted by PowerJC:
“The matrix was shot in super35, so it is acutally opened up at the top and bottom when shown on tv. So not as bad as being cropped; but not OAR.”

Some Super 35 films are easily opened up top and bottom, as you suggest, but FX-heavy films like THE MATRIX are no less pan-scanned than other 2.39:1 movies shot in this process. But instead of scanning from side-to-side, the telecine operator must zoom in or out and around the image, depending on what he/she believes is important within each shot. So, I disagree that it's "not as bad" as being cropped - it's AS bad, and sometimes even worse.
Free-who
28-05-2012
Since when did the bbc iplayer start to show films like "pirates of the Caribbean" and "surrogates" on the iplayer.

Its brill i havent seen surrogates before but iam in the middle of watching it now.
jzee
28-05-2012
Originally Posted by Free-who:
“Since when did the bbc iplayer start to show films like "pirates of the Caribbean" and "surrogates" on the iplayer.”

Since ages, it depends whether they paid for online streaming rights or not.
eyeblink
31-05-2012
A related issue to the one this thread deals with...

This afternoon, I caught a bit of the 1958 film THE SILENT ENEMY on Film Four. It was shown in 4:3, though that was clearly wrong - Britain and the US had stopped making commercial 35mm movies in Academy Ratio by then. The film had clearly been shot open-matte but due to the large amount of empty space above people's heads, it was clearly intended to be projected at 1.85:1.

Presumably Film Four don't have a HD copy (which would hopefully be in either 16:9 or 1.85:1)?
Libretio
01-06-2012
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“A related issue to the one this thread deals with...

This afternoon, I caught a bit of the 1958 film THE SILENT ENEMY on Film Four. It was shown in 4:3, though that was clearly wrong - Britain and the US had stopped making commercial 35mm movies in Academy Ratio by then. The film had clearly been shot open-matte but due to the large amount of empty space above people's heads, it was clearly intended to be projected at 1.85:1.

Presumably Film Four don't have a HD copy (which would hopefully be in either 16:9 or 1.85:1)?”

As I understand it, by 1958, the 'widescreen' ratio of most non-scope UK films was actually 1.66:1, a standard that was applied across much - though maybe not all - of continental Europe. It wasn't until the mid-1960's that UK filmmakers established a policy of shooting 1.66:1 and protecting for 1.85:1, for the sake of international distribution (1.85 was, of course, the 'widescreen' standard in the US).

So THE SILENT ENEMY would have been 1.66:1. It's possible that many UK filmmakers were already protecting for the US standard as early as 1958 (the year of TSE'e production and release), but the primary ratio would have been 1.66:1.

Apologies for my rampant show-offery. It's a curse, and no mistake...
Libretio
01-06-2012
(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)


Scope and 3-D movies across the Freeview platform for the coming week (2 - 8 June):


Saturday (2 June)

• ABOUT A BOY (ITV 2)
• ALIEN (C4) [Panavision]
• CARLITO'S WAY (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• DEMOLITION MAN (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (C4)
• MAD MONEY (Film 4)
• NOTTING HILL (ITV 2)
• PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST (BBC 3)
• PRIDE & PREJUDICE (ITV 3)
• RATATOUILLE (BBC 1) [CGI]
• ROBIN AND THE 7 HOODS (BBC 2) [Panavision]
• TORA! TORA! TORA! (More 4) [Panavision]
• UNTIL DEATH (5 USA)
• ZOOLANDER (E4)


Sunday (3 June)

• THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (Yesterday) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• BROKEN ARROW (C4)
• BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (Film 4) [Panavision]
• DOWN WITH LOVE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• FIERCE CREATURES (ITV 3) [Panavision]
• KING SOLOMON'S MINES (Film 4) [J-D-C Scope]
• NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2 [Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian] (Film 4)
• THE NINTH GATE [La Neuviθme Porte] (C5)
• SCREAM 3 (Really) [Panavision]
• THE SIMPSONS MOVIE (Film 4) [CGI]
• THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE (Film 4)
• WANTED (ITV 2)


Bank Holiday Monday (4 June)

• THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (Yesterday) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• COLLEGE ROAD TRIP (BBC 2)
• NEVER BEEN KISSED (Film 4)
• THE NINTH GATE [La Neuviθme Porte] (C5)
• PASSENGER 57 (ITV 2) [J-D-C Scope]
• QUANTUM OF SOLACE (ITV 1)
• RAT RACE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (Yesterday)
• SCARFACE (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• STAR TREK (Film 4) [Panavision]
• STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE (C4) [Panavision]
• WONDERFUL LIFE (C5) [Techniscope]


Bank Holiday Tuesday (5 June)

• ANDRE (E4) [Clairmont Scope]
• CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE PRESTIGE (BBC 2) [Panavision]
• THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (Yesterday)
• THE RIVER WILD (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• STAR TREK: GENERATIONS (C4) [Panavision]
• URBAN LEGEND (C5)
• VIVA LAS VEGAS! (C5) [Panavision]


Wednesday (6 June)

• CASINO (ITV 4)
• THE EIGER SANCTION (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• THE GETAWAY (BBC 1) [Panavision]
• PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END (BBC 3)
• TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES (5*)


Thursday (7 June)

• MISTER LONELY (Film 4)
• NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2 [Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian] (Film 4)
• PROOF (BBC 1)
• SPIRIT: STALLION OF THE CIMARRON (BBC 2) [CGI]
• THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE (Film 4)
• A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT [Un Long Dimanche de Fianηailles] (ITV 1)
• THE VIOLENT MEN (C4) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• WANTED (ITV 2)


Friday (8 June)

• ΖON FLUX (Film 4)
• THE BLACK BALLOON (BBC 2)
• CARLITO'S WAY (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• DOWN WITH LOVE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• FIERCE CREATURES (ITV 3) [Panavision]
• FREDDY'S DEAD: THE FINAL NIGHTMARE (5*) [Freddy-Vision 3-D (partly)] [1.85:1]
• KING SOLOMON'S MINES (Film 4) [J-D-C Scope]
• LAYER CAKE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• NOTTING HILL (ITV 2)
• TORA! TORA! TORA! (More 4) [Panavision]
• A TOWN CALLED PANIC [Panique au Village] (Film 4)
• A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT [Un Long Dimanche de Fianηailles] (ITV 1)
• ZOOLANDER (E4)
eyeblink
01-06-2012
Originally Posted by Legerdemain:
“This article may be interesting to you:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/05/c...nrise-kingdom/

I've been looking into this a bit lately because of Joss Whedon's decision to shoot Avengers in 1:85:1, and it seems to be a similar reason - vertical action.

ETA When I saw the Avengers I could see why. The varying heights of the team, and the climax I think worked better in 1:85.”

Also, as that article mentions, MOONRISE KINGDOM was shot in Super 16 - not that that precludes the film being shown in Scope.

From memory of articles past, WATERWORLD was shot in 1.85:1 because of the large number of verticals - also, I'm not sure if Kevin Reynolds has ever directed a film in Scope, so directorial preference may come into it as well.

Also, John Boorman shot EXCALIBUR in 1.66:1 because of the vertical compositional elements - knights on horseback, castles, trees etc - when Scope is a format that emphasises horizontals. Boorman is certainly not averse to shooting in Scope as he has done so many times - but he seems to favour 1.66:1 for his non-Scope features. You have to wonder how good that looked in the majority of US cinemas, which can only show 1.85:1 and Scope. LEO THE LAST is certainly in that ratio and so is HOPE AND GLORY (which looks very tight and cramped in 1.75:1 or 1.85:1), but they had arthouse releases in the States. More about this after the quote...

Originally Posted by Libretio:
“As I understand it, by 1958, the 'widescreen' ratio of most non-scope UK films was actually 1.66:1, a standard that was applied across much - though maybe not all - of continental Europe. It wasn't until the mid-1960's that UK filmmakers established a policy of shooting 1.66:1 and protecting for 1.85:1, for the sake of international distribution (1.85 was, of course, the 'widescreen' standard in the US).

So THE SILENT ENEMY would have been 1.66:1. It's possible that many UK filmmakers were already protecting for the US standard as early as 1958 (the year of TSE'e production and release), but the primary ratio would have been 1.66:1.”

While I've certainly seen many British films in 1.66:1 from the Fifties and Sixties (IF... is a late-Sixties example), I think it's more complex than that and especially with all the various widescreen ratios used in the Fifties (1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 or 2:1) you have to go on a case-by-case basis. Other factors might include director and/or DP preference, the presence or otherwise of US funding and how well it is likely to play commercially. While I'm sure THE SILENT ENEMY played in 1.66:1 back home, it certainly looked like it was composed for 1.85:1. (It certainly shouldn't have been shown by Film Four in 4:3 anyway.)

I once reviewed a batch of Sixties British films on DVD, and all but one of them were in 1.66:1 and looked like they should have been in that ratio. But one exception was A KIND OF LOVING (which is hardly the most US-friendly film out there) which was 1.85:1 and certainly didn't look unduly cropped.
Libretio
02-06-2012
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“While I've certainly seen many British films in 1.66:1 from the Fifties and Sixties (IF... is a late-Sixties example), I think it's more complex than that and especially with all the various widescreen ratios used in the Fifties (1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 or 2:1) you have to go on a case-by-case basis.”

Oh, I couldn't agree more! There is nothing more frustrating than trying to work out what ratio was used for which spherical film during the 1950's and early 60's. Without reference to studio records, it's hard to be absolutely certain. But the 1.66 thing for UK films at the time was recently emphasised at the Hammer films blog (see: here), where it was confirmed that most Hammer films from this period were indeed 1.66 for domestic consumption. And since they were one of the leading studios of the day, it's a safe bet that most other filmmakers were working to the same template for spherical films, for no other reason than 1.66 would have been the theatrical standard in domestic cinemas. That only began to change in the mid-1960's.

Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“While I'm sure THE SILENT ENEMY played in 1.66:1 back home, it certainly looked like it was composed for 1.85:1.”

And that may well be the case - shot for 1.66 and protected for 1.85 (the latter being not too dissimilar from 1.66 anyway).

By the way, on a separate note: SE7EN is being screened on Viva over the weekend (it was on last night - Friday - and may well be repeated tonight). It was shown OAR last time, so it's probably the same this time around.
<<
<
74 of 136
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map