Rio Lobo, Rio Bravo, El Dorado, True Grit aspect ratios
Steven Reynolds
I'm a big fan of John Wayne westerns and there are several that I have not
bought on laserdisc because I've been waiting for LBX editions to come out.
After what seems like years of waiting for LBX editions of Rio Bravo,
Rio Lobo, El Dorado, and True Grit (not to mention McLintock!), I am
beginning to wonder if they will ever come out.
Then I realized that perhaps these films were not shot in an anamorphic
format such as Panavision (except McLintock! which I know is Panavision).
Maltin's guide does not list any processes for these films, so now I am
wondering if the reason for no LBX releases is that these were filmed
in Academy Aperture? Even AMC which often plays both LBX and P&S versions
of films did not show a LBX version of Rio Bravo and El Dorado when those
were shown.
If you know the aspect ratio in which any of these films were shot, please
send me e-mail. If it turns out that the non-LBX versions do not lose any
picture information, then I will buy them... unless of course someone tells
me that they are lousy transfers.
--
Steven A. Reynolds Amateur Radio AA6OT
ste...@coyote.rain.org Santa Barbara, CA
http://www.rain.org/~steven
Trawby
The films you mentioned were shown in flat 1.85:1 standard aspect ratio. Most
older films of this type don't require pan and scan to pick up all the
important action. "McLintock!", as you mention, was photographed in 2.35:1
anamorphic Panavision.
--
Tra...@ix.netcom.com
TECLOC - Preserving "The Window of the World"
Robert Birchard
It is standard practice to shoot 1.85:1 films without a "hard
matte." Since the image side to side is the same as standard 35mm 1.33
format and only the top and bottom of the frame are not used, it has
become standard practice for cinematographers to compose for 1.85--but
to shoot 1.33. Theatres mask the top and bottom in projection to
achieve the 1.85 aspect ratio on screen, while video releases use the
1.33 image so that windowboxing or letterboxing will not be necessary.
For this reason 1.85 films are not always seen to their best
advantage on TV, because they were composed for the wider format.
Now, why has 1.85 become the standard in movies since the 1950's
when it was put forward as a poor man's wide screen process. It uses
less of the negative area, and necessitates enlarging the image to a
greater degree on the screen to maintain the same relative screen
height. The image is severely degraded on screen. 1.33 and Scope
provide superior image quality in theatrical presentation.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Wide News
In article <50o215$1...@news.rain.org>, ste...@rain.org (Steven Reynolds)
writes:
>Maltin's guide does not list any processes for these films, so now I am
>wondering if the reason for no LBX releases is that these were filmed
>in Academy Aperture?
In all likelihood they were composed for 1.85:1 with the Academy
sound aperture soft matte protected to the 4:3 TV frame. A letterbox
video of this type of film would simply superimpose black
bars over watchable but unessential image (although microphones
sometimes drop into the upper area). To see the theatrical cropping,
you can paste black cardboard over your TV to letterbox it, or if you have
a cinema-wide 16:9 TV, just enlarge it to full width and symetrical
cropped top and bottom.
Scott Marshall
Publisher, Wide Gauge Film and Video
http://members.aol.com/widenews
Bruce Morrison
Robert Birchard wrote:
>
> It is standard practice to shoot 1.85:1 films without a "hard
> matte." Since the image side to side is the same as standard 35mm 1.33
> format and only the top and bottom of the frame are not used, it has
> become standard practice for cinematographers to compose for 1.85--but
> to shoot 1.33. Theatres mask the top and bottom in projection to
> achieve the 1.85 aspect ratio on screen, while video releases use the
> 1.33 image so that windowboxing or letterboxing will not be necessary.
>
> For this reason 1.85 films are not always seen to their best
> advantage on TV, because they were composed for the wider format.
>
> Now, why has 1.85 become the standard in movies since the 1950's
> when it was put forward as a poor man's wide screen process. It uses
> less of the negative area, and necessitates enlarging the image to a
> greater degree on the screen to maintain the same relative screen
> height. The image is severely degraded on screen. 1.33 and Scope
> provide superior image quality in theatrical presentation.
Although it is standard practice to shoot 1.85 films without a hard
matte, it is not always done that way. For example, I think Bugsy
must have been shot with a hard matte in the camera. I did a comparison
between the wide-screen laserdisc presentation and a full-screen TV
broadcast. There was absolutely no difference at the top or bottom, but
information was lost at the sides in the full-screen presentation.
I've noticed this on a few other films as well. Unfortunately, the
credits appear to give no clue as to how the film has been shot in this
regard.
Bruce Morrison
Kelly Crawford
Bruce Morrison wrote:
> Although it is standard practice to shoot 1.85 films without a hard
> matte, it is not always done that way. For example, I think Bugsy
> must have been shot with a hard matte in the camera. I did a comparison
> between the wide-screen laserdisc presentation and a full-screen TV
> broadcast. There was absolutely no difference at the top or bottom, but
> information was lost at the sides in the full-screen presentation.
>
> I've noticed this on a few other films as well. Unfortunately, the
> credits appear to give no clue as to how the film has been shot in this
> regard.
>
>
> Bruce Morrison
'The Arrival' was shot in Super 1.85 which is basically the same as
full-aperture (uses the sound track area for image information) so we'd
have freedom in compositing and also be able to use the 1.33 vertical area
for video release.
As it worked out, we had to move things so much in compositing that there
were some laughable shots when viewed with an academy gate (legs without
feet, arms without hands etc.) So the decision was made that in order to
protect ourselves from googolplex cinemas with less-than-zero
projectionists we would hard-mat the release prints at the lab to 1.85:1.
Hiro Narita, the DP supervised the video mastering from original negative
so they were free to use the full-aperture stuff that worked and blowup the
composites that needed it.
I think this means that the 1.33 video release will have more information
than the letterbox version which will probably be the same as the
hard-matted release version. I didn't participate in the video mastering so
I'm just talking into my hat. The picture was visualized, though, in 1.85:1
format so the release print version is what was approved by the director
and the DP. I don't even know if Mr. Twohy even saw the video master.
All I'm trying to say is that it depends on the material available when the
letterbox version is made. For older films, it's possible that the disc was
made from a pristine release print because the original cut negative was
unavailable, or they were too cheap to make an IP from the O-Neg for
telecine purposes (not withstanding the generation loss.)
Flame if you must,
Kc
Lisle Foote
>Although it is standard practice to shoot 1.85 films without a hard
>matte, it is not always done that way. For example, I think Bugsy
>must have been shot with a hard matte in the camera.
Allen Daviau always shoots with a 1.66 hard matte in the camera ("E.T.",
"Color Purple", "Empire of the Sun", "Fearless", "Congo", "Bugsy"...).
David M.
Steven Cohan
Actually, weren't they shot in old standard Academy ratio of 1.33:1? Rio
Bravo, at least, predates the wider standard format, I know that. Steve