The Dam Busters (Blu-ray)

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

To get back to the actual movie at hand, the trailers for the new Dam Busters restoration would seem to suggest that it's still in 1.33. From what I remember of watching prior versions there's definitely too much headroom here and there, and when characters move up in the frame the camera move seems to be 'ahead' of the action slightly which is a tell-tale sign of the in-camera framing being cinched in tighter than what's actually being shown. When I pick this up (though it won't be for a while yet, natch) I'll try it with different levels of embiggening and see what works best.
.

Someone on this website says that the trailer is not from the new 4K restoration. It certainly doesn't look cleaned up. So we need to wait and see what aspect ratio it is. Studio Canal are no doubt also considering my recent letter to them on the subject!

[Robert Furmanek]

I've never seen the film and from looking at the new trailer, it looks quite interesting.

Can't wait to see it in the miracle of Metroscope, even if my Epson has to do the proper masking!

[Geoff D]

It's chock full of stiff upper lips, wartime derring-do and a dog called...well, we won't get into what the dog's called. It's best to stick to talk of aspect ratios, that's far less controversial.

[Robert Furmanek]

The opening title looks terrific in the correct aspect ratio!

[Douglas R]

I was 10 years old in 1955 when I saw THE DAM BUSTERS (massive queue to see it at the ABC cinema North Harrow) but even then knew about aspect ratios. I loved seeing the screen open extra wide for CinemaScope films and DAM BUSTERS was certainly not shown 1.33:1.

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's chock full of stiff upper lips, wartime derring-do and a dog called...well, we won't get into what the dog's called. It's best to stick to talk of aspect ratios, that's far less controversial.

The most stirring part of the whole film is depicted but never mentioned. As the squadron makes a final attempt to breach the second dam, Gibson orders those that had already made their runs to attack again in order to draw flak from the Lancaster carrying the last bomb. In his book, Paul Brickhill tells how Gibson ordered those on the dummy run to switch on their landing lights, the better to be seen by the flak batteries. Just imagine that.

But though no such order is given in the film, it's right there on screen as the Lancs either side of the attacking bomber switch their lights on and off, lit up like Christmas trees to make themselves targets.

I wonder if the line was in the script, but excised for reasons much like William Goldman describes when he wrote the scene in which the Canadians are slaughtered as they cross the river in A Bridge Too Far?

In real life, the Canadians made two attempts to get across, but Goldman said he couldn't script it like that. The audience would never believe they'd have gone back into that hell.

(There's a second example in Sink The Bismarck! as the Swordfish come in for a torpedo attack, braving a hellish hail of fire from the German battleship's formidable defences. As the Swordfish lumber towards their target, the bomb aimer of one of the 'fish can't see as the sky is lit up by Bismarck's artillery. So, he heaved himself out of his rear seat and leaned as far out of the aircraft as he could, into the rain of steel, to get a better shot. His fish struck home. It's not depicted in the film.)

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by GaryCouzens

Some films were shot with an in-camera hard-matte...

And yet this one clearly wasn't, or we wouldn't be having the discussion, I suppose.

And, indeed, there's the rub. The sheer omnipresence of 1.37:1 version suggests that hard matting was rare, not withstanding the few which were hard matted then cropped at the sides.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by John Hodson

The most stirring part of the whole film is depicted but never mentioned. As the squadron makes a final attempt to breach the second dam, Gibson orders those that had already made their runs to attack again in order to draw flak from the Lancaster carrying the last bomb. In his book, Paul Brickhill tells how Gibson ordered those on the dummy run to switch on their landing lights, the better to be seen by the flak batteries. Just imagine that.

Good knowledge.

[Gorgon]

Thanks for giving Brickhill's book a plug John Hodson!
It's an amazing read.

[Robert Furmanek]

I'm very pleased to report that we provided primary source documentation to ClassicFlix and FIVE STEPS TO DANGER (1.85:1) and DOWN THREE DARK STREETS (1.75:1) will be released on Blu-ray in the correct aspect ratio.

You can finally see them as the director intended for the first time since their original theatrical release.

Be sure to pre-order these new releases; they look fantastic!

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

I'm very pleased to report that we provided primary source documentation to ClassicFlix and FIVE STEPS TO DANGER (1.85:1) and DOWN THREE DARK STREETS (1.75:1) will be released on Blu-ray in the correct aspect ratio.

You can finally see them as the director intended for the first time since their original theatrical release.

Be sure to pre-order these new releases; they look fantastic!

What exactly is "primary source documentation"?

Apart from Night of the Living Dead, Criterion have also given us Lord of the Flies in 1.37,described on the case as the "original theatrical aspect ratio".
The transfer was supervised by the films editor who you would have thought might have an idea about the ratio. And this was a decade after the switch to widescreen started.
And Hammer seemed to still be using 1.66 another ten years on from that.
??

Genuine enquiry

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

What exactly is "primary source documentation"?

Genuine enquiry

Are you sure you don't know?

Anyway, here is a definition:

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

Are you sure you don't know?

Anyway, here is a definition:

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

It doesn't mention Kine Weekly.

And with all this "evidence" of widescreen being the intended format from 1953 I really am interested in why the editor of Lord of the Flies would supervise a 1.33 transfer for a 1963 film and why Hammer were still using 1.66 in the 70's.
The first 3 Bond films are 1.66.
The first dozen Carry On films are 1.66.
Is everybody wrong?

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

It doesn't mention Kine Weekly.

And with all this "evidence" of widescreen being the intended format from 1953 I really am interested in why the editor of Lord of the Flies would supervise a 1.33 transfer for a 1963 film and why Hammer were still using 1.66 in the 70's.
The first 3 Bond films are 1.66.
The first dozen Carry On films are 1.66.
Is everybody wrong?

Many people are indeed wrong because they haven't done the research. Also, unlike documentation, memory is fallible.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

Many people are indeed wrong because they haven't done the research. Also, unlike documentation, memory is fallible.

As your post in the Ice Cold In Alex thread shows, it would seem you are under the misapprehension that Studio Canal are guessing the ratios for films they have licenced when in fact they have owned all these movies outright since the 90's so if anyone has official documentation, original negatives, film cans etc it will be Studio Canal

[punking]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

As your post in the Ice Cold In Alex thread shows, it would seem you are under the misapprehension that Studio Canal are guessing the ratios for films they have licenced when in fact they have owned all these movies outright since the 90's so if anyone has official documentation, original negatives, film cans etc it will be Studio Canal

Why are you so certain that StudioCanal received all of this documentation. I'm curious if you've ever worked in a studio/media archive?

Sometimes you're just relieved there's a correct (and meaningful) label on the can/box.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

Are you sure you don't know?

Anyway, here is a definition:

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

Speaking as someone who works in education, and with a humanities degree, this is correct, but your overall usage is misleading.

To offer an example - let's at we were looking at Henry VIII. Anne Boleyn was executed in 1536. Let's say a small scale news pamphlet gave an account of her execution in that year, but none of the people writing or editing the pamphlet were present at the execution. Remember, absolutely no one is suggesting Kino staff were present at the shooting of any of these films, nor that the spoke to the director or cinematographer directly, first hand.

Then let's suppose the executioner was only young. He loved a long life, and gave his account a number of decades later.

His comments would be considered a primary source, and probably considered more accurate/valid than pamphlet. In common parlance, 'someone who was there, offering their evidence while still alive' would count for more than the fact that a pamphlet written by someone who wasn't there, but published closer to the event.

I'm sorry, and I don't want to be rude, but when some people use the term 'primary source', and pretend it lends them some sort of academic credibility, it needs to be pointed out that things are not as they suggest.

In short, they are implying a standard of academic advantage which is not supported by proper use of the term, nor its application to other sources.

Historians would never say the Kino 'proved' anything. They'd also agree that memory can be inaccurate. But when you say (as you often do) that:

Many people are indeed wrong because they haven't done the research. Also, unlike documentation, memory is fallible.

Whilst accepting that "memory is fallible", they would fundamentally reject your implication that second hand documentation automatically supersedes first hand human memory.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by punking

Why are you so certain that StudioCanal received all of this documentation. I'm curious if you've ever worked in a studio/media archive?

Sometimes you're just relieved there's a correct (and meaningful) label on the can/box.

I'm not certain but if anyone would have access to the original materials it would be the copyright owner. Studio Canal took over the rights to hundreds if not thousands of classic British films when they bought out what Thorn EMI originally owned.
Even in this day and age big studios lose things but it seems more logical for Studio Canal to have the information for the films they own than some guy in the US.
Even just watching disc documentaries we can see that archives are not always kept accurately and things turn up in mis labelled cans years later.
Assuming Kine Weekly is not the primary source where would Bob Furmanek have got official documentation from?

I have an acquaintance who worked on Carlton dvd's (before it was all ITV), and he also worked on The Avengers dvd's and Blurays for Studio Canal and back in the day he would visit the archives of ITC and return with horror stories of mis labelled cans, misused cans, lost content and much more. He is in fact personally responsible for the discovery of the "original" opening titles for Randall and Hopkirk Deceased. And these were lost for 25 years and only found in mis labelled cans during research for dvd extras - so I am aware of that its not all plain sailing.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

Is everybody wrong?

Yes.

[Robert Furmanek]

Nigel Phelan knows!