Twins of Evil 4K UHD (1971)

[Markgway]

How about this for a cover art?

[Show spoiler]

[Mariah007]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

That's just the name.

I've got the Peter Cushing scrapbook. It's not a literal scrapbook, but a lovely colour-printed coffee-table format that is "scrapbook" in terms of it just having lots of related ephemera related to the subject without needing a written narrative to hold it all together.

How can I tell what the book size is? Does anyone have comparison photos?
I want a massive edition and I would gladly buy it if it is, but not if it is just a regular A4.

[Deadend45]

Originally Posted by Mariah007

How can I tell what the book size is? Does anyone have comparison photos?
I want a massive edition and I would gladly buy it if it is, but not if it is just a regular A4.

Ah the hand-crafted by monks Edition.....

[Mariah007]

Originally Posted by Deadend45

Ah the hand-crafted by monks Edition.....

thats the one I want, I want some effort and a MASSIVE book

[SS-3]

It's disappointing that it is in the 1:66:1 aspect ratio and not the original 1:85:1 aspect ratio. Easy pass due to this miss and the high price.

[Hammerlover]

Originally Posted by SS-3

It's disappointing that it is in the 1:66:1 aspect ratio and not the original 1:85:1 aspect ratio. Easy pass due to this miss and the high price.

If Hammer does, in fact, release a U.K. edition, they would most likely offer a choice of aspect ratios, as they have done with the majority of their releases thus far.

[Braktastic]

This is why I love this forum. I think I'll hold off on Twin of Evil for now in hopes of a variety of aspect ratios to choose from.

[BobSimms]

1.66:1 is the world’s classiest aspect ratio (everyone knows this), so even if it’s not Twins of Evil’s original AR, it’s still a good thing.

[Sergeant Howie]

1.66:1 is the correct intended ratio. The Synapse Blu-ray I have is 1.66:1 - it looks fine. I love this film. It's one I've had for years on my phone!


This mania for 1.85:1. The OAR is 1.66:1.


I don't know as much about film as most of you, or even about Hammer, as some of you. But I do know this. Via Vision is correct.

[buck135]

Love this flick. Easy preorder.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Sergeant Howie

1.66:1 is the correct intended ratio. The Synapse Blu-ray I have is 1.66:1 - it looks fine. I love this film. It's one I've had for years on my phone!


This mania for 1.85:1. The OAR is 1.66:1.


I don't know as much about film as most of you, or even about Hammer, as some of you. But I do know this. Via Vision is correct.

It’s really not and those who insist it is are wrong. What it was is 1.66:1 safe. The primary UK theatrical ratio quickly settled at 1.75:1 before later being standardised at 1.85:1. Commercial films were also protected for 1.85:1 before the final shift.

So why has 1.66:1 become the assumed default for British movies? Probably partly due to Europe preferring 1.66 and the other part being 1.75 not being recognised in SMTPE standards. It’s the forgotten ratio despite a majority of British cinemas showing films like that for well over a decade.

Regardless, if Hammer do their version they’re guaranteed to call 1.66:1 the OG UK ratio. People are so stuck with the idea 1.66:1 is the correct default for British movies there’s no telling them. Case in point, I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before to you too.

[oddbox83]

10 Feb 1955 – Kinematograph Weekly
British Film Producers’ Association Camera Technical Committee:
“1.75:1 is the optimum ratio … with protection to allow prints to be shown at 1.66 or 1.85 as required.”
6 Oct 1955 – Ideal Kinema
Editorial confirms:
“The official BPFA standard for British widescreen productions is 1.75:1, though acceptable projection may vary between 1.66 and 1.85.”
1956–60s – Kine Weekly & Today’s Cinema
No change in guidance; 1.75 remains the production norm with increasing use of 1.85:1 as primary ratio into the 1970s.

It’s all there in the bleedin’ trade sources cited above. The only annoying thing is Twins of Evil specific stuff is behind a paywall, but there’s evidence enough for me without it that the intended ratio is not 1.66:1.

At least some now take notice - see the flat (spherical lens) Bond films of the period now ditching 1.66:1 and going 1.75:1 for the 4Ks.

[sa5150]

This may mean nothing , but its all I can find and I don't trust wiki or AI . I'm getting this regardless for the 4K transfer .

The original aspect ratio of the film negatives for Twins of Evil is 1.37:1 (also known as the Academy Ratio). This is sometimes referred to as "open matte" as it refers to the full, uncropped image captured on the film negative.
While the negatives are 1.37:1, Twins of Evil was likely framed for presentation at a theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1 (the European standard) or 1.85:1 (the US standard). Many home video releases, including Blu-ray editions, present the film in the 1.66:1 aspect ratio

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

10 Feb 1955 – Kinematograph Weekly
British Film Producers’ Association Camera Technical Committee:
“1.75:1 is the optimum ratio … with protection to allow prints to be shown at 1.66 or 1.85 as required.”
6 Oct 1955 – Ideal Kinema
Editorial confirms:
“The official BPFA standard for British widescreen productions is 1.75:1, though acceptable projection may vary between 1.66 and 1.85.”
1956–60s – Kine Weekly & Today’s Cinema
No change in guidance; 1.75 remains the production norm with increasing use of 1.85:1 as primary ratio into the 1970s.

It’s all there in the bleedin’ trade sources cited above. The only annoying thing is Twins of Evil specific stuff is behind a paywall, but there’s evidence enough for me without it that the intended ratio is not 1.66:1.

At least some now take notice - see the flat (spherical lens) Bond films of the period now ditching 1.66:1 and going 1.75:1 for the 4Ks.

Please read below, your reference is included.

[Show spoiler]
Chapter 4: Beyond the Numbers: The Historical and Technical Context of Hammer Films

4.1 The Hammer Legacy of Soft Matting
To fully appreciate the significance of the 1.66:1 ratio for Twins of Evil, one must understand the technical production practices of Hammer Film Productions in the early 1970s. Hammer, like many studios of the era, primarily shot on standard 35mm film stock, which captured an image with a height-to-width ratio of approximately 1.33:1. Filmmakers would then use a "soft matte" by composing the scene within a designated area of the viewfinder, with a clear understanding that the final theatrical print would be cropped by the projector's aperture plate to a specific widescreen ratio.

This practice was officially sanctioned by industry bodies. For example, in 1955, the British Film Producers' Association (BFPA) approved a standard ratio of 1.75:1 for British widescreen productions, while acknowledging that prints should be 'protected' to allow for projection at either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 as required. Kinematograph Weekly and Ideal Kinema magazines from the time confirm this guidance, noting that 1.75:1 was the 'optimum ratio' but allowing for variation between 1.66 and 1.85.

This method allowed for a single negative to be used for different exhibition formats around the world. As a British company, Hammer's primary framing would have been for the British and European markets, where 1.66:1 was the established widescreen standard. For films destined for North American distribution, a slightly wider 1.85:1 mask would be used in theaters. This system was designed for efficiency, but it also means that the decision of which ratio to use for a modern restoration requires a careful look at the original production intent and the physical negative.

4.2 The Role of the Filmmakers
The film's aesthetic is a direct result of the creative collaboration between director John Hough and cinematographer Dick Bush. Hough's tight direction and Bush's "luminous colour cinematography" are frequently lauded by critics. The composition and camera placement, which are essential to the film's visual impact, would have been framed with the taller, European 1.66:1 ratio in mind. This slightly taller frame is characteristic of European cinema and provides a distinct aesthetic from the more horizontal 1.85:1 format.

By restoring the film to its 1.66:1 ratio, preservationists are not just correcting a number; they are actively preserving the film's artistic and cultural context. The choice reflects a commitment to the director's and cinematographer's original vision, which was designed for a specific theatrical viewing experience that honored the aesthetic sensibilities of its production origins. The consistency with which these artistic choices have been rediscovered and honored by multiple restoration houses reinforces the validity of the 1.66:1 aspect ratio as the authentic and intended framing.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Final Verdict
The aspect ratio of 1.66:1 is the correct and most authentic framing for the film Twins of Evil. This determination is supported by a significant body of evidence, including the collective decision of multiple, respected film preservation and distribution companies that have restored the film directly from its original 35mm negative. The claim of a 1.85:1 ratio appears to be a misinterpretation of a secondary theatrical projection standard used in certain markets rather than the film's primary artistic framing. The consistent choice of 1.66:1 in all professional high-definition restorations reflects a consensus that this ratio best represents the creative intent of the filmmakers and the historical context of a British-made film of the period.

5.2 Recommendations for the Collector
For any enthusiast seeking the most faithful and authoritative presentation of Twins of Evil, the following recommendations are provided:

The Definitive Edition: The Imprint Films 4K UHD release is the most highly recommended edition. As a new 4K restoration from the original negative, its presentation of the film in 1.66:1 is the ultimate validation of the correct aspect ratio and offers the highest possible video quality.

A High-Quality Alternative: The Synapse Films Blu-ray release is an excellent alternative. It was a pioneering release in bringing the film to high-definition in its original aspect ratio and is still widely praised for its picture quality and supplementary features.

[oddbox83]

That’s pure AI that then contradicts itself anyway by using that primary source for 1.75:1 but then saying that UK and Europe were the same projection ratios.

[sa5150]

still a 4K scan , anyone interested in a group buy when JBhifi has it on sale ? either 20% off or buy 1 get 1 free . Let me know , might not happen till its in stock though .

Unless anyone knows who this is John Gore Organization . Synapse does not own any rights to make media anymore . and Aussie is rocking it
Last edited by sa5150; Today at 04:07 AM.

[Mariah007]

I can make a better edition that will sellout instantly, I know what the boys want
Big box set with Pet slip that reveals the twins topless, with hardcover book containing all production images and behind the scenes, and script book
A Playboy edition reprint with the twins, inside the box set, 4k remaster and with multiple aspect ratios, and all the behind the scenes footage available and documentary of making of the film.

Umbrella should hit me up

[Pecker]

Whilst this film is a pretty good Hammer yarn, it really does fall flat in a number of important areas.

[Show spoiler]1 - The title in misleading, both twins aren't evil.
2 - This is one of a trilogy of lesbian vampire films, and there's no lesbianism
3 - There's far less sex and nudity than the previous two films in the trilogy.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!

[Mariah007]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Whilst this film is a pretty good Hammer yarn, it really does fall flat in a number of important areas.

[Show spoiler]1 - The title in misleading, both twins aren't evil.
2 - This is one of a trilogy of lesbian vampire films, and there's no lesbianism
3 - There's far less sex and nudity than the previous two films in the trilogy.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!

Answer

[Show spoiler]
1: the title isn’t misleading, it’s just marketing flair. Not every word in a title is literal.
2: It’s still part of the trilogy because of the themes and atmosphere, not just the lesbian angle. Sometimes less sex/nudity means they’re actually focusing on story and mood for a change
3: Relax, Pecker, not every movie has to stroke your expectations.
Sometimes you’ve just gotta let the plot build up slowly instead of expecting it to get straight to the climax.
Not every scene is going to be a happy ending just for you, sometimes you’ve got to handle the tension yourself.

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING PECKER!

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Mariah007

Umbrella should hit me up

You're on speaking terms again?