Horror of Dracula (Dracula 1958)

[sonny gaunt]

Pre-ordered this, I have the UK disc already. I'm happy to purchase some films multiple times over-it furthers my belief that there are only 100 people who purchase multiple copies of the same film, lol. I ask people, "How many movies do you own?", they reply "Two or three.". They ask, 'How many do you own?". I reply, "Two or three of the same film.". Lol. Looking forward to this as my region A has(I believe) slightly better upscaling.

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by Harryhausen AF

There could be confusion since this isnt a Japanese movie. If it was an english print with an original label then it might mean something but I still believe the experts that it is 1.75.

[ShellBeacher]

This has been pulled from Amazon. Still on WarnerArchive/WBShop's site.

I wonder if someone at Warners is paying attention to you folks? ;-)

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by ShellBeacher

This has been pulled from Amazon. Still on WarnerArchive/WBShop's site.

I wonder if someone at Warners is paying attention to you folks? ;-)

Probably the same bizarre routine that WAC's The Thing From Another World as the most recent example has experienced. Same thing happened with The Satanic Rites Of Dracula last month. I wouldn't be concerned.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

It's funny how in the restoration video, the guy explains that they made the conscious decision not to make the restoration reflect the prints. They weren't willing to bring the colors out, hence why everything appears to have a blue cast. So definitely no "blanket tint" or any "baked-in" garbage. As I said earlier, there is no cause for concern.

But continue with the conspiracy theories, moaning about 1.66:1 and blanket tints that don't exist which you have determined will ruin WAC's release regardless. Frankly, don't see why these folks are still posting here if they're so convinced that the Blu-ray will be a mess. I guess they'll silently drop out of the thread when it's released and everything looks fine, then they'll find a completely dirrerent thread to post misinformation on.

[Joppers]

This thread is hilarious. Bob provides written evidence and is completely dismissed because it rankles the posters who prefer 1:66:1. But the icing on the cake is suggesting that Hammer corroborated 1:66:1. The same Hammer who tried to convince UK fans via their own blog that the correct aspect ratio for Curse of Frankenstein was 1.37:1.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Joppers

This thread is hilarious. Bob provides written evidence and is completely dismissed because it rankles the posters who prefer 1:66:1. But the icing on the cake is suggesting that Hammer corroborated 1:66:1. The same Hammer who tried to convince UK fans via their own blog that the correct aspect ratio for Curse of Frankenstein was 1.37:1.

Like I said to the other guy, if written evidence exists then please provide a link to it.

If people have a problem with the 1.66:1 ratio and don't think it's correct, then the onus is on them to prove it's wrong.

[oddbox83]

I said I was done, but...

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/wi...-documentation

The tip of the iceberg of Robert's research. Different interpretations and views are fine but I find it shocking the people shrug off his research work so lightly and dare I say it, insultingly. I hope the latter are unaware of his important work in the industry in preserving films and documentations. Also hypocritical as well considering many here will have been heaping praise upon him over his 3D restoration work recently.

I wouldn't blame him if he washed his hands of this thread.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Bob Furmanek's research is very valuable although definitely not conclusive in all cases as proven in the past, Night of the Living Dead is one example where the 1.85:1 ratio being the original was debunked by the people who were on set behind the actual cameras during actual photography. What do you trust more, those who worked on the film or primary source documentation? There have also been cases of scope films listed in the same primary source documentation that Bob researches where the ratio listed is an Academy ratio which is obviously not correct.

"Primary source documentation" ranks well below official (original) production specifications and intimate knowledge corroborated by empirical evidence for individual films. That's why it's not used and is disregarded when better evidence exists that states otherwise. This isn't rocket science.

As I said, I'd be more willing to take Furmanek's word for the ratio had I not already seen better evidence, and in person to boot. Not to mention my own personal experience in the field, knowing that plenty of inconsistencies and mistakes still get published to this day.

Despite all this "evidence", nothing suggests the film should be 1.75:1. Trained professionals from multiple parties have analyzed pre-print records and archival specifications made for the films release by those who were involved in the film's production. You really think non-specific documentation from newspapers/magazines trumps that?

That's not how debating works. As Bates said, if people don't want to side with more concrete documentation, then that's on them. If Furmanek has some smoking gun evidence then why not hand it over to Warner? As far as I know Furmanek hasn't analysed the original pre-print elements and made comparisons to the prints themselves which many in the industry will tell you is a much better method of determinjng the intended aspect ratio.

But what would I know? I only studied this stuff for years, got qualifications, have hands-on experience and still get contaced to consult on certain films I have intimate/conclusive data on that went against what the "experts" said.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

And with that said, I am absolutely done with this stupid argument unless actual evidence is released stating that it should be 1.75:1. 1.66:1 is the "correct" default ratio as determined by the experts who have more information and physical evidence to work with.

If there's actual evidence that 1.75:1 is the intended ratio, then I'd believe it, but I doubt there is otherwise it would have been posted already. Also, those in the know have informed me that they've yet to see a print of the film (US and UK) where 1.75:1 is the suggested projected ratio. Seems kind of odd, but going by Blu-ray.com logic, I guess someone must have tampered with the prints and documentation.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Dannywilde

It seems certain that like most British films this was shot at 1.66.

According to the information that the motion picture professionals in the production and exhibition business listed,

from 1957-1970 the reported production ratio of British widescreen productions was:

1.85 = 41%
1.75 = 55%
1.66 = 4%

from 1966-1970:

1.85 = 63%
1.75 = 37%
1.66 = 0%

Understandably, as 1.85 became the American Standard Widescreen ratio in 1956, and the potential market of an English speaking paying audience was more than ~5x (~200 million in the US alone) that of the UK (~40 million). Plus I would think US productions being a great percentage of movies exhibited in the UK, the tendency for theaters in the UK would be to buy (or replace new) projection lenses with focal lengths for 1.85 for the optimal presentation.

In any case, 1.66 is only 5% different from 1.75, only on the height.

[Show spoiler]

1.66 (if showing the full flat 35mm 0.825" width) is the safest ratio you can use in a video transfer for widescreen movies and not worry or having to find out if you're using the correct ratio in the transfer.
Also in 4:3 vs 16:9 TV days, a 1.66 transfer had the same video quality if you did it letterboxed in 4:3 or pillarboxed in 16:9 on a DVD. The general purpose all encompassing lowest common denominator. Removes all the guesswork.

Originally Posted by Dannywilde

The uncertainty arises over what ratio it may have been shown at in various cinemas around the world.

Note: 1.66 cuts 0.6% of the 0.500" x 0.825" 1.65 UK format. about 6.5 pixels missing on BD

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Bob Furmanek's research is very valuable although definitely not conclusive in all cases as proven in the past, Night of the Living Dead is one example where the 1.85:1 ratio being the original was debunked by the people who were on set behind the actual cameras during actual photography. What do you trust more, those who worked on the film or primary source documentation? There have also been cases of scope films listed in the same primary source documentation that Bob researches where the ratio listed is an Academy ratio which is obviously not correct.

"Primary source documentation" ranks well below official (original) production specifications and intimate knowledge corroborated by empirical evidence for individual films. That's why it's not used and is disregarded when better evidence exists that states otherwise. This isn't rocket science.

As I said, I'd be more willing to take Furmanek's word for the ratio had I not already seen better evidence, and in person to boot. Not to mention my own personal experience in the field, knowing that plenty of inconsistencies and mistakes still get published to this day.

Despite all this "evidence", nothing suggests the film should be 1.75:1. Trained professionals from multiple parties have analyzed pre-print records and archival specifications made for the films release by those who were involved in the film's production. You really think non-specific documentation from newspapers/magazines trumps that?

That's not how debating works. As Bates said, if people don't want to side with more concrete documentation, then that's on them. If Furmanek has some smoking gun evidence then why not hand it over to Warner? As far as I know Furmanek hasn't analysed the original pre-print elements and made comparisons to the prints themselves which many in the industry will tell you is a much better method of determinjng the intended aspect ratio.

But what would I know? I only studied this stuff for years, got qualifications, have hands-on experience and still get contaced to consult on certain films I have intimate/conclusive data on that went against what the "experts" said.

Furmanek will be one of the first to admit the documentation isn't always correct - IIRC he has come across some that stated Dracula should be 1.85:1, something he has gone on to disprove himself.

Night of the Living Dead isn't quite the same, and a lot of those sorts of films fall inside the grey area were production ratio and projected ratio are two different things, and yes production ratio is preferred in those cases when it differs.

If Hammer themselves insist 1.66:1 is right, I frankly do not believe them. Their car crash of a blog from several years ago leaves me with zero trust in them as a source for technical info on their predecessors' films. These are the people who insisted Curse of Frankenstein's OAR was 1.37:1 based on nothing more than the fact they liked seeing more of the image and Terence Fisher was an "auteur", there was nothing wrong with the audio on Rasputin despite past DVDs having far superior sound and it was "not as easy as you'd think" to have seamless branching on Devil Rides Out despite many other labels doing that frequently.

I do understand even if I don't necessarily agree with* the camp that go with 1.66:1 as the safe choice where production paperwork is lacking, but only when this opens up the image top and bottom. Too many 1.66:1 presentations have cropped the sides off to make 1.66:1 which is just a travesty. Thankfully, this isn't the case with the BFI's restoration of Dracula.

*Based on surviving evidence, the odds have it that 1.75:1 should be the default ratio for UK films of this period, not the in my mind disproven 1.66:1 as default.

[Martoto]

It was shown 1.66:1 on the horror channel last night FWIW.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

*Based on surviving evidence, the odds have it that 1.75:1 should be the default ratio for UK films of this period, not the in my mind disproven 1.66:1 as default.

I have said all I wanted to say regarding Dracula, although I will comment on this.

There should be no "default" ratio for any group of films released around a certain time. This is an objectively biased statement in favor of 1.75:1, whether you realize it or not, and that's what I'm trying to explain.

Statisticaly it's more likely that a randomly selected flat British film from the period would be 1.75:1 over 1.66:1, but 1.66:1 was still being used despite not being as common and specific evidence is a million times more accutate than general statistics.

As with almost everything, doing things on a case-by-case basis will lead to more accurate results. According to Deciazulado's post 4% of British productions were shot for 1.66:1 from 1957-1970. The majority of productions were in 1.75:1 with it at 55%.

If I used this logic and applied the 1.75:1 ratio to all those films then 45% of them would be in the incorrect ratio, hence why I deal in absolutes instead of hypotheticals/generalizations.

[startrekkin58]

Good lord this thread...

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I have said all I wanted to say regarding Dracula, although I will comment on this.

There should be no "default" ratio for any group of films released around a certain time. This is an objectively biased statement in favor of 1.75:1, whether you realize it or not, and that's what I'm trying to explain.

Statisticaly it's more likely that a randomly selected flat British film from the period would be 1.75:1 over 1.66:1, but 1.66:1 was still being used despite not being as common and specific evidence is a million times more accutate than general statistics.

As with almost everything, doing things on a case-by-case basis will lead to more accurate results. According to Deciazulado's post 4% of British productions were shot for 1.66:1 from 1957-1970. The majority of productions were in 1.75:1 with it at 55%.

If I used this logic and applied the 1.75:1 ratio to all those films then 45% of them would be in the incorrect ratio, hence why I deal in absolutes instead of hypotheticals/generalizations.

My point is, in the absence of genuine surviving paperwork, the odds have it you should take 1.75:1 as a starting point in working out correct ratio, not 1.66:1. It also makes sense to me (in general, not for Dracula specifically) as well being more of a median average between the two other possible ratios it's safer in that sense, rather than the 1.66:1 whitewash approach.

Of course I'm not suggesting you apply 1.75:1 to everything by default. That would be as insanely ignorant as the view that British cinema should always be 1.66:1.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

My point is, in the absence of genuine surviving paperwork, the odds have it you should take 1.75:1 as a starting point in working out correct ratio, not 1.66:1. It also makes sense to me (in general, not for Dracula specifically) as well being more of a median average between the two other possible ratios it's safer in that sense, rather than the 1.66:1 whitewash approach.

Of course I'm not suggesting you apply 1.75:1 to everything by default. That would be as insanely ignorant as the view that British cinema should always be 1.66:1.

Well I'd rather rely on my own eyes rather than statistical possibility in this case.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Well I'd rather rely on my own eyes rather than statistical possibility in this case.

Exactly. The BFI framing looks lovely zoomed to 1.75:1.

[babybreese]

That is of course, why the film was hard matted in camera at 1.66.

Unreal how ignorant so many are.

[Sergeant Howie]

Originally Posted by startrekkin58

Good lord this thread...

May I say something? On that restoration YouTube imbedded video, posted a few pages back by 'Partyslammer', Ben Thompson, Image Quality top dude at the BFI says that the aperture was matted in-camera to 1.66:1 and so that is the ratio of the picture on the negative itself. I do realise that this doesn't mean it can't be matted further in a projection room, but he makes it clear that he actually measured the physical ratio. I'm not arguin' just sayin'. I do have an old pal who is a professional cameraman but I haven't actually seen him for years, nowadays he specialises in high-speed work, and probably knows nothing more for sure about this than I do (i.e. not a lot).

What's interesting is Ben Thompson tried to follow colours as faithfully as he saw fit (here is my transcript of that section, with a few of my [inserted comments] ):

"The grading is... are the red, green and blue values that are used in the printer to control the colour content you might say, to balance the colour. I thought that in controlling the overall look of the grade the most genuine -given the lack of material- thing to do was to... [nervously] not push the saturation bias to emulate an inhibition print [whatever that is?] for example. It was really just about faithful reproduction of colour as *I saw it in the print*, without putting too much of a signature that might suggest we're trying to look like an Eastmancolor print; we're trying to look like an inhibition print... really just trying to emulate what I saw on that check-print [at first I thought it was 'Czech print', which just shows how much I know] from the camera neg. It just felt like the most faithful thing I can do."

I don't know... I have the UK Lionsgate Blu-ray; I have one of the German Anolis Mediabooks (my preference, the one with the same poster design on the front as this new WAC release); I saw the 2007 BFI restoration on the big screen one late night in Edinburgh -looked fantastic: my worries about digital cinema assuaged- at the time and didn't get home until 4am; I snoozed on this new one because I'm short on money at the moment (really short)... Amazon's pulled it, doesn't mean the initial run has sold out, I am led to understand... I dunno. If it were any other Hammer film... if it were any other movie...