Aspect ratio
Does anybody know what the aspect ratio of the theatrical release was? It doesn't say on the Technical Specs-page here on IMDb.
share1.85:1
-J. Theakston
The Silent Photoplayer
http://www.thephotoplayer.com/
MovieChat Forums > The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) Discussion > Aspect ratio
I watched this last night on the new DVD release. It is 1.85:1 - its anamorphic and filled my widescreen nicely - no stretching or cropping. Excellent quality.
'be sure to drink your ovaltine'
I recently found out 20 Million Miles to Earth was originally 4:3, though on DVD was widescreen (and 4:3). You can see the widescreen has the bottom cut off! (Eeek!). Noramlly it's the other way round; the full screen is cropped.
Ray Harryhausen said many of his films were 4:3 and matted in the cinemas at the time. Holy cheap cheat cinematic anti-anamorphic, Batman!
And I have seen many Paramount apparent widescreens have the bottom steps of the logo cut off - Ray's.
I checked the UNIVERSAL logo of a 1957 4:3 and TISM has the exact same one (even matching stars) yet the top and bottom are missing! Oh noo!
Matted logo, ergo I suspect the aspect ratio 4:3.
Always thought the 50's seems just too early for B&W widescreens.
I'm afraid you're wrong, Superman. I've run several 35mm prints of INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN and the film is clearly composed for 1.85:1. The blocking of the titles and the composition of the shots are a dead givaway.
If Harryhausen composed for 1.37, he was wrong to do so because by 1957, almost all of the movie theaters in America had adjusted for widescreen. I've never run a print of 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH, but I'd stake money on it that if you ran it 1.85, it would look perfect.
You just can't tell by looking at video transfers of films. In the transfer process, all sorts of zooming and matting is done, particularly on INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (mostly to cover up the hard-matting on the optical shots). You can pretty much bet almost any film from a major studio after 1953 was composed for widescreen.
-J. Theakston
The Silent Photoplayer
http://www.thephotoplayer.com/
The Silent Photoplayer, you mean the 35mm prints you ran were widescreen, not 4:3 and composed for widescreen matting?
Yes I noticed before what you said about the blocking of the titles on TISM, and the shots.
I checked the DVD of the wide 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH and it is the same. Though I read that in the cinema they matted it at 1.66:1, and 1.85:1 is a bit tight.
I just checked my DVD of Tarantula, 1955 (not the DVD, but the film was 1955, ha), just officially released and soon in the UK, which is 4:3 on the DVD. To my surprise, the same. Titles; and headshots always have the right space above them.
Logic dictates they shot in 4:3 - it would be cheaper? - and the shots are composed so it can be matt to widescreen, whether by projection or prints or how they do it.
If so, seems I'm half right, half wrong. Hey that must mean I'm a half wit!
I read Harryhausen did his effects in 4:3, but that they fitted fine in the widescreen view of course.
I didn't know 1953 was the year of the widescreen. Makes sense then even B&Ws after would.
Do they zoom and matt transfers even in modern films? Seems it'd be "blasphemy" to a director.
Superman, that's what's called "flat" widescreen, the most common form of widescreen in movie theaters (as opposed to an anamorphic squeeze, which is known as "scope").
Films are shot full frame with a certain aspect ratio in mind and protected for that ratio. When they are projected in the theater, there is a matte put into the projector (an aperture plate) and the remaining picture is zoomed in onto the screen.
So, in effect, the film itself is 1.37:1 on film when you get it (although sometimes it is already matted in black on the film-- known as a "hard matte"), but the way you are supposed to project it is with another aspect ratio, cropped from that 1.37 image.
For more information about this, go here: http://www.widescreen.org/index.shtml
-J. Theakston
The Silent Photoplayer
http://www.thephotoplayer.com/
Ahh so that's how it works. Shows how much I didn't know I don't know. Thanks for that info, TheSilentPhotoplayer.
I always thought - in my cinema naivete, the darkness that is my film nahh, call it if you will by the new name, art noknow - that the negatives were different aspect ratios.
So that's like another form of 'editing' film in a way, cutting useless bits off.
Now I have scored for film, a naivete novate. (Novate: to replace with something new.) Sorry. Excuse my French. It's bad.
I just visited that site which shows how pan and scan can show more vertically than widescreen, and the matting (in special effects shots) you were talking about.
All my questions are answered.
- The worst film made is what is formed on top of milk when left too long.