Godfather Aspect Ratio

[Warbler]

Mods: if this was already talked about, I apologize and please delete this thread.


accord to the main page on this site https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-G...-Blu-ray/1003/, The original aspect ratio of the movie is 1.85:1, but the aspect of the blu-ray is 1.78:1. Why the difference? I think the original 2001 DVD release was 1:85:1, Why did they cut the sides off(slightly)? When are these people going to get message to put movies out in there original aspect ration and nothing less or more?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Warbler

Mods: if this was already talked about, I apologize and please delete this thread.


accord to the main page on this site https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-G...-Blu-ray/1003/, The original aspect ratio of the movie is 1.85:1, but the aspect of the blu-ray is 1.78:1. Why the difference? I think the original 2001 DVD release was 1:85:1, Why did they cut the sides off(slightly)? When are these people going to get message to put movies out in there original aspect ration and nothing less or more?

They didn't cut off the sides, the just opened up the top and bottom slightly to fill the screen.

And Coppola supervised and approved the restoration and aspect ratio.

[Warbler]

then they are showing material not shown in the theaters.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Warbler

then they are showing material not shown in the theaters.

I'm no projectionist, but I've heard the matting isn't that precise from theater to theater, so a cinematographer would frame the shots with some leeway in mind.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Warbler

then they are showing material not shown in the theaters.

You wouldn't be able to notice the couple extra lines of pixels at the top/bottom anyway if not compared side-by-side.

Originally Posted by 42041

I'm no projectionist, but I've heard the matting isn't that precise from theater to theater, so a cinematographer would frame the shots with some leeway in mind.

Right. In fact, most TVs have a thing called overscan and this chops off a little from the sides and in the case 1.85:1 letterboxed pictures, almost all of the letterbox.

But yeah, open matte from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 isn't a big deal. If it was shot 2.4:1 and open matted to 1.78:1, then you'd have something to complain about, but being mad about seeing a few more pixels at the top and bottom is absurd.

[Deciazulado]

Most 35mm Standard Widescreen movies (AR of 1.66 ~ 1.85) are made in standard 35mm sound cameras which have an aperture of around 16 mm x 22 mm, 1.37

Widescreen movies intended for U.S. exhibition (that also includes movies made elsewhere, but known to be made for exhibition in the U.S. market, like UA's A Hard Day's Night and Bonds, and the Stanley Kubrick's) are shot and composed for 1.85 theatrical projection, which uses a projector aperture of 11.3 mm x 21 mm (0.446" x 0.825").

When these movies are shown on a theater with a 1.66 screen, the 1.66 projector's aperture (12.6 mm x 21 mm or 0.497" x 0.825") shows 1.3 mm (0.51") more (extra) image on top and bottom, about 11% more:

Camera aperture: black

Projector Aperture/Camera Groundglass Markings: red

Widescreen1.85.gif Widescreen1.66.gif
1.85 -> 1.66

If you transfer a 1.85 movie into 1.78 showing a little extra, you show only 4% more.

Also, on the other end of the scale, since not all theaters show a 100% of the image, SMPTE practice allows for a 5% crop (3% recommended). Cropping the width of a 1.85 movie 5% gives you an aspect ratio of 1.76:1.
1.78 would then be within standards allowance.

If a 1.85 movie is shot with a Super-35 (silent) camera, which have an aperture of about 19 mm x 25 mm, the intended 1.85 image is extracted from the 13 mm x 24 mm area (0.511" x 0.945") . This area in a 2K scan gives you a file size of 1080 x 2000 pixels. If you wanted to transfer to Blu-ray with a 1:1 pixel correspondence and avoid resampling fudge, you have to crop the width to 1920.

See examples of these small variations:

1.85 projected in 1.78



1.85 proper



1.85 cropped to 1.78

(Similar issues happen to 35 anamorphic format (Which has changed from 2.35 from 1957 to 1969, to 2.39 from the 70's on till the present) or from a 2K of a Super35 negative (like the 2K 1.85 Super35 1080 x 2000 example to 1080p I described above) intended for anamorphic prints. Which of course should be presented in a 2.3 ~ 2.4 ratio, not cropped or open matted to 1.78)

[KubrickFan]

Warner does it too. It kinda bugs me, but it's a really small difference, so I get over it. And the older DVDs were in 1.78:1 too.

[jamal2]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

stuff

This was a great post, thanks for the education.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Warbler

then they are showing material not shown in the theaters.

It's miniscule and I doubt you can even tell. But that's what Coppola wanted, and he's the director, so I'm sure he knows his work best. He wouldn't compromise his 2 biggest films if he thought it would be a big deal.

[Robert Harris]

This discussion has seen many variants, but the bottom line is always the same. An image, as viewed in a theater, especially an older, larger house, has little in common with the image as viewed on a properly adjusted home theater system.

In theaters other than those run with proper presentation in mind, aspect ratio had little or nothing to do with final content, as incorrect focal length optics were the norm, and a projected RP 40, as posted above, seldom looked as it does in this thread unless projection was dead on from porthole to screen. The audience was unaware of the actual amount of image missing, as they were also unaware of proper color. Beyond problematic lamp houses and reflectors, films usually ran on yellowed screens, stained from smoking.

Many older venues project an inverted trapezoidal image in order to attain a rectangle on screen, and no one is the wiser.

In the final analysis, control over aspect ratios is far, far greater toward the creation of a quality Blu-ray than in theaters. The difference between 1.85 and 1.78 theatrically would be indistinguishable, and only visible in home theaters as a few scan lines of black at the upper and lower areas of a monitor or screen in 1.85 mode.

The Godfather was photographed 1.37 open matte, with projection instructions to run at 1.85:1, as that was the standard at the time. Some theaters incorrectly projected at 1.37, especially in re-issue. In later years, the film was also run 2:1 in many smaller venues as that was the "standard" for that particular theater.

And to answer a question that I'm certain will follow... Yes. Presentation was damaged at both 1.37 as well as 2:1.

But so were the presentations of anamorphic productions at 2.35, cropped to 2:1 to fit the "one size fits all" theater screen.

In the final analysis, exposing what are essentially miniscule areas once covered theatrically makes little difference. If one opens the projection aperture for a 70mm film originally covering inboard mag stripes, one exposes a bit more image area on the sides, and ends up with close to a 2.35:1 ratio. Does it matter? In most cases, no.

RAH

[kefrank]

I vote that RH's post gets a sticky! He ought to be the final authority on this issue.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by kefrank

I vote that RH's post gets a sticky! He ought to be the final authority on this issue.

+1

I wish RAH could do something about those people over at the "every movie should be cropped to 1.78:1 so my TV screen is always full" thread.

[J6P]

Warbler,

I don't know if you noticed but you asked a simple question and got both a typically deep and educational response from Deci, and a bonus perspective straight from the mouth of Robert Harris himself -- the man that did the restoration on The Godfather.

I really love this site sometimes.

[ewsjr]

Originally Posted by 42041

I'm no projectionist, but I've heard the matting isn't that precise from theater to theater, so a cinematographer would frame the shots with some leeway in mind.

Boy, is this ever true. Most times they can't even get the film properly framed on the screen or the pressure plate right. I hate when the film is running off the edge or top of the screen or you can see the raw edge of the film while it's running.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by J6P

Warbler,

I don't know if you noticed but you asked a simple question and got both a typically deep and educational response from Deci, and a bonus perspective straight from the mouth of Robert Harris himself -- the man that did the restoration on The Godfather.

I really love this site sometimes.

+1 He really got the royal treatment! Consider yourself lucky, Warbler.

[DidntKnowJack]

Thanks for the in-depth reply, Mr. Harris.

But your post brought something else to mind. I've seen films in the past that were broadcast on TV, where on occasion, you could see the boom mic at the top of the screen. Is this merely the result of improper framing? I can't even site a specific example, as it's been years since I've even seen such a thing happen. I've always been curious about that. I don't believe I've ever seen anything like that happen on any of my DVD's or Blu-rays.

[Warbler]

thank you all for your very informative, interesting, and detailed replies. I'm especially honored the Robert Harris himself would reply, I wasn't expecting that.

Now that I understand things a little better, I take back the complaint I had about the aspect ration. Thanks again.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by DidntKnowJack

Thanks for the in-depth reply, Mr. Harris.

But your post brought something else to mind. I've seen films in the past that were broadcast on TV, where on occasion, you could see the boom mic at the top of the screen. Is this merely the result of improper framing? I can't even site a specific example, as it's been years since I've even seen such a thing happen. I've always been curious about that. I don't believe I've ever seen anything like that happen on any of my DVD's or Blu-rays.

Many broadcast versions of films were shown in open-matte format. A lot of films were shot on full-frame 35mm film (1.37:1), with the intention of being cropped to the desired aspect ratio, be it 1.85 or 2.40. So if you're shooting for 1.85:1 and a boom mike is in the shot but won't be seen in the 1.85:1 area that you are shooting for, you don't care. However, the broadcast version will show the area that was cropped out for theatrical presentation and you'll see the boom mike.

"A Fish Called Wanda" is a classic example of a movie being ruined by opening the matte.

[Kit Sargent]

I was a movie usher during the 70s and I was subjected to watching films over and over. I also worked in theaters that had the top technology of the time and I worked in a theater that used old carbon arc projectors.

In every theater I worked, side curtains or black felt panels would always be adjusted for the specific aspect ratio of the film. Remember, the 70s theaters mostly did not have the platter system, which meant projectionists had to be a lot more skilled than those of today. All the projectionists I worked with took their job very seriously and were very attentive to each film's specs.

While the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.77:1 is very small, it does effect the overall dimension of the frame. Most audience members will never notice the difference, but people who saw the films in the theaters who are cinephiles will notice the slight difference, because to fit the 1.77 ratio the image is zoomed in and the horizontal quality of the frame will be diminshed.

I also worked in a film restoration lab in NYC for years ... just as movies were starting to be duped into digital masters. I worked on the Technicolor Looney Tunes library for Turner and I worked on the 50th anniversary release of "Citizen Kane." Unlike the Godfather movies where much of the original negative was usable for duping (despite the damage described by Robert Harris), Kane had no original negative. While the common story is that the original camera negative was burned up in a fire, the truth is most likely the little-known story that an RKO executive mistakenly sent the camera negative to a silver reclamation plant.

Thus all modern DVD copies have been duped from a Frankenstein negative that includes mostly pieces of intermediate negatives. I had to wade through dozens of inter-negatives and beat up fine grain masters to make a new theatrical negative to run prints off of. No amount of digital retouching can bring back the look of the original camera negative.

Understanding the process, I have enormous respect for Robert Harris and his team.

But I am still befuddled by the Blu Ray "Coppola Restoration." As a movie usher, I had to stand in the theater for the entire film running time. I worked when Godfather Pt II was released. I watched it three times a day, seven days a week for three weeks. The original quality is fairly well established in my mind.

So when I watch this 2008 restoration, I was very surprised to see such a grainy dupe. I know. There is much talk about how grainy the original film was shot. But I saw the original, when the prints were brand new, and the Godfather films were never this grainy. Any area of the frame that goes full black in the shadows, now looks like there is a snow storm going on with all the lighter grain and noise. The lighting is a fair amount brighter. The color timing is different. That "brass" patina Gordon Willis talked about was a much, much subtler effect when one viewed the original prints.

The image is far less sharp, far more digitally noisy. Which is crazy after reading about the restoration process Robert Harris went through. I mean, if Harris was using a good amount of original 35mm negative and scanned it with 4K resolution, there is no way these two films should look so bad.

I recently got a new 65" Sony that displays amazing images. I also bought an Oppo Blu Ray player. I custom adjusted the picture settings based on several Blu Ray releases ... Pacific Rim, 2001, The Searchers, Grand Budapest Hotel and Sorcerer.

So then I played the previous non-Blu Ray DVD release of Godfather I and II. Then I put in the new restoration Blu Ray edition. And honestly, they look exactly the same. Same amount of grain, same amount of noise. The luminence and color palette the exact same. So I have a sneaking suspicion that even though the film was entirely restored by Mr. Harris, the studio, either by mistake or on purpose, re-issued the prior non-Blu Ray DVD now labeled as the "Coppola Restoration." I know this sounds crazy. It can't be true. But I can find no other way to explain the extraordinary lack of quality.

Compare these new Godfather editions with the new Blu Ray release of the restored "Sorcerer." From what I read, restoring Sorcerer was an even tougher job than restoring the Godfather films as there was next to nothing of an original negative by which to be guided by.

But take a look at the new Sorcerer blu ray. The image quality is so much better than the "Coppola Restoration" of the Godfathers. It's an extraordinary job and the film almost looks as good as it did when originally released.

Trust me. Gordon Willis did not shoot the Godfather films with the wild amount of grain you see in the 2008 release.

When I bought this 2008 release, I was really hoping beyond hope that NOW I can finally see the film with an image quality that would be fairly close to the original film. But nope. It looks just the same as my non-Blu Ray edition.

I'm not alone. You'll find a number of people who are old enough to have seen the original Godfathers in the theater, voicing the same disappointment as I.

The "Coppola Restoration" is in no way a true Blu Ray release in terms of image quality.

What's also baffling is the fact that the first two Godfathers were shot in Technicolor. How a film can look this bad despite being shot in Technicolor? Were there no Fine Grain Masters? I worked with the original Technicolor FGMs with the Looney Tunes library and these masters were astounding to look at. The density, resolution and color quality looked like they had not aged a day. I also worked on Ira Gershwin's home movies that he shot in 16mm Kodachrome reversal film. Kodachrome was a reversal positive film known for incredible durability, color saturation and density. Looking at the frames of Kodachrome Gershwin shot in the later 30s, it seriously looked like it was shot yesterday. Very freaky! Kodachrome and Technicolor were different films with very different processes, but they shared the same durability and color saturation that lasts over decades.

If Robert Harris was truly able to scan 4K images of most of the original negative, I remain hopeful that as more people buy 4K TVs, there will eventually be a 4K release that actually captures the quality and look of the original films as seen in the theater.

[tylergfoster]

I didn't see the film in theaters hundreds of times (or at all, I wasn't alive), but I think you overstate the degree to which the transfers are poor in terms of overall quality. That said, I definitely find the intensity of the sepia or golden tint in the picture to be suspicious, and the image is certainly very grainy.