|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $33.49 7 hrs ago
| ![]() $33.49 9 hrs ago
| ![]() $74.99 14 hrs ago
| ![]() $24.96 1 day ago
| ![]() $42.99 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $44.99 | ![]() $35.99 5 hrs ago
| ![]() $30.48 | ![]() $9.99 12 hrs ago
| ![]() $24.96 | ![]() $27.13 | ![]() $35.99 5 hrs ago
|
|
![]() |
#1 | |||
Banned
![]() Oct 2011
|
![]() ![]() On the Waterfront Blu-ray Quote:
Last edited by Scottie; 08-17-2017 at 04:24 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Site Manager
|
![]()
On The Waterfront was projected in 1.85 by the Library of Congress when I saw it in it's Film Preservation Tour and the movie looked fine. It's a Widescreen movie and the Widescreen aspect ratio is 1.85.
Bob Furmanek is a serious person and he does his research. (Also, non widescreen Academy is 1.37 not 1.33. 1.33 is the TV ratio and Silent Film ratio) |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Banned
![]() Oct 2011
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Banned
|
![]() Quote:
So, in this case I think it's the 1.37:1. from imdb trivia (i don't know if this has been posted before) The film was shot by Elia Kazan at the aspect ratio of 1.37:1. It was originally offered to 20th Century Fox by Kazan, but was turned down by Darryl F. Zanuck because the film was shot in black & white and in the academy ratio of 1.37. Fox at the time was big into Cinemascope wide screen pictures. The film may have been exhibited in a few theaters at 1.66 or even 1.85, but was shot, and exhibited, in 1954, at 1.37:1 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
Never quote from Jeffrey Wells again, he's a bit of a joke.
![]() I never realised there was any debate surrounding the aspect ratio of On the Waterfront but choice is always good. Criterion must have taken inspiration from the MoC release of Touch of Evil but there's been a lot more debate about that one over the years than On the Waterfront. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Banned
|
![]()
The 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 transfers will be cropped from the 1.37:1 transfer. The movie was shot before people started using Super 35 as a way of having aspect ratio choices during post-production.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | ||
Site Manager
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
The camera gate is still the same , but the viewfinder groundglass has markings for the director and the cameraman to frame and compose the film for widescreen. In the theaters the only area seen is the groundglass 1.85 area. Widescreen1.85.gif black: camera gate red: groundglass marking/projector aperture This is the way non-anamorphic movies have been done for almost 60 years (2013 would be 60 years since the Widescreen changeover) |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Banned
![]() Oct 2011
|
![]()
Appears so
![]() Just to clear some things up - i quoted his article for the sake of news regarding the OTW BD itself,not because i value dude's writing style,opinions,thoughts,etc... I don't even know who this guy is ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Senior Member
|
![]()
Bob Furmanek knows as much about the 1953-and beyond aspect ratio issues as anyone (or more than anyone else) and if he would recommend that OTW be shown only at 1.85:1 I couldn't argue with him, and indeed I think it's the most appropriate AR from what relatively little I know about the era. I do remember reading something about one of the production staff on Kiss Me Kate, from the same year of 1953, that they had to compose KMK for three aspect ratios, 1.37:1, 1.66:1, and 1.85:1, so I presume that there is some similar documentation for OTW. Seems like overkill but I don't see how anyone could complain since all ARs with any relevance at all will be present.
I guess one could carp about the price, since this is almost certain to be a two-disc set to accomodate the three versions of the film. If so I hope it's the 1.85 alone on one disc with the other two ARs sharing the other. Last edited by obscurelabel; 10-17-2012 at 02:06 PM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|