my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Urgent request - 'The Birds' A.R. (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Urgent request - 'The Birds' A.R. Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 12-11-2004 01:32 PM                     Can somebody please tell me the correct aspect ratio for Hitchcock's 'The Birds'? I thought it was 1.85, but I've read conflicting information, and I'm running it tomorrow. Many thanks.  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-11-2004 03:01 PM                     I'm betting that it is one of those transitional prints between when they were all 1.37:1 and when the US finally adopted 1.85:1. I'll bet that it will run just fine in either 1.85:1 or 1.66:1. You'll just have to look at it on the bench and make a judgement call. This is just a guess, and not based on any known facts.  |  IP: Logged Tao Yue Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Princeton, NJ Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-11-2004 04:27 PM                        Run it in 1.85, it'll be fine. Birds came well after the transition to widescreen, in 1963. It was Hitchcock's second post-VistaVision film and was shot conventionally. I'm rather surprised there's an aspect ratio discussion over Birds; the controversial one, I thought, was Psycho because it's deliberately B&W and low budget. (Many people think it should be shown open-matte; I don't).  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 12-11-2004 06:15 PM                     THE BIRDS is fine on an 1.85 screen, but all 35mm prints I know of are quite grainy, especially in the visual effects shot, which is why I preferred to screen it at 1.66 ratio. No problem in composition at all. I agree regarding PSYCHO. You cannot run it 1.37 because in the shower scene and (not sure of that) in some other scene there is black matting printed in to make sure that Ms. Leighs formidable breasts will remain covered (what a pity). An audience will be distracted by this matting appearing suddenly, so keep it at 1.66, but 1.85 looks very "tight" in my opinion.  |  IP: Logged Daniel Alt Expert Film Handler Posts: 111 From: Lakewood, OH, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 12-11-2004 10:27 PM                     Was there an earlier discussion about "Psycho?" I've looked, but I can't find it. I ask because we're screening it later this year. We've got a 60's era trailer that we're showing right now that looks a bit odd in 1.85, but it's within the realm of possibility that that is the correct aspect ratio. It might also work in 1.67:1, but since we always have multiple trailers on a reel, we won't be finding out. (I seriously doubt "The Fifth Element"'s trailer was shot in anything other than 1.85:1) The "Pyscho" trailer is great fun, by the way. "No one will be admitted to see this movie except from the very beginning!"  |  IP: Logged Daniel Alt Expert Film Handler Posts: 111 From: Lakewood, OH, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 12-15-2004 09:42 AM                     Bump, because I'd still like to know for sure if we should be screening Psycho in 1.67 or 1.85.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-15-2004 11:24 AM                        I still contend that the transitional peroid from about 1955 to say 1965 or even later when the industry was moving to spherical wide-screen, there were may varying aspect ratios; 1.85 was by no means cut-and-dry as the video releases have lead people to believe. Fact is, that when I first started booth work in the mid-60s to the late 60s, I was still getting flat prints with reelband that had three "acceptable" apsect ratios printed on them -- one that said "Minimum AR, below which extranious material could be seen" one that said "Recommended Aspect Ratio" and a third -- "Maximum AR, above which significant picture image will be cropped." Many times I saw 1.66 as the Recommended AR and 1.85 as the Maximum -- not the recommended. In fact, one title that I remember distinctly was WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF (1965 or 1966). A good 10 years after the move to flat wide screen began, this was marked 1.66 as the recommended ar -- NOT 1.85. But if you look at the current DVD or go to IMDB, you will see that now they are officially claiming 1.85 -- no doubt so they can market the video with the "In the Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio" tag on it. Well, I was in the booth when we ran that for 5 weeks; it was printed full-frame (1.37) and the Recommended AR was 1.66. The Maximum AR was given as 1.85, which I presume was NOT recommended. We ran it at 1.66, first run in a flagship theatre of the Schulman chain. Those reelbands for me are the definative historical proof that the transition to the now standard 1.85 was long in coming and there were many films that were not shown at 1.85 during those years, even in the first run theatres. This is also the reason why many of the films of this decade were full frame, because there were still many theatres that were still projecting all flat titles at 1.66 or even narrower. Disney's technical department wisely and staunchly resisted the move to 1.85 because of the degredation in quality it represented. They stayed with 1.75 as their official flat aspect ratio. And I still cannot find the year where the SMPTE standard for 1.85 AR for American flat productions was first introduced. I think with many of these transitional titles, it's a call you make on a number of factors: is it particularly grainy? if so, go 1.66; does it look unusually "tight"? do a test run in 1.66 --you will probably find it looks even more natural in that ratio. I ran THE BIRDS quite a few years after its initial release and I seem to recall that it was hard matted at 1.66. I probably ran it at 1.66 at the matte, but it's just a guess, I can't recall for sure. But, if you have lenses and plates for both, test it at 1.66. And forget about going to IMDB as a source -- they claim 1.85 for way too many titles during the transition. Oh, and you can't go by interviews by the people who were there fifty years ago either; their memories tend to get cloudy on certain points. At the famed World 3D Film Expo last year in Hollywood, two actors claimed that because they were shooting in 3D, they had to shoot all the scenes twice to get the 3D. [ 12-15-2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-15-2004 12:28 PM                     quote: Frank Angel And forget about going to IMDB as a source I've handled a few films that they claim to be Scope and they are were Flat. I even tried to have them update the correct information and have seen nothing done. They are good on somethings but not technical information.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 12-15-2004 01:01 PM                     Original release prints were hard matted to 1.66, however, most theatres in the USA probably ran it 1.85 since 1.66 was not a widely used aspect ratio over here. /Mitchell  |  IP: Logged Tao Yue Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Princeton, NJ Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-16-2004 02:56 AM                        Daniel, although it's tempting to think 5:3, hence more accurately 1.67, it actually isn't. Projector aperture of 825 x 497 mils, which really does round to 1.66. (Remember, this is a board where people are careful to type 1.37 and 2.39 instead of 1.33 and 2.35) I agree with Christian on Psycho.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-16-2004 05:38 AM                        We were told to run The Birds in 1.66 at the NFT, but if I remember correctly the print we showed there was Academy matted. Given the margins around the titles (roughly proportionate in 1.66 but very tight at the top and bottom on 1.85), this looked right to me.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 12-17-2004 05:49 AM                     Thanks folks. I had decided to run it in 1.85; when I looked at the print somebody, from a previous venue, had written 1.85 on the leader of the first reel, but then crossed it out, and changed it to 1.66. While the previous film was running I had a look at it on the bench, and like Leo, decided that the titles looked a bit tight for 1.85, so I changed my mind, and went with 1.66. So, I'm still not sure what the correct ratio is; it looked ok at 1.66, but it would be nice if filmakers would make it clear how they intend their work to be shown, and it was clearly printed on the leaders. Leo, you say you were 'told' to run it at 1.66, who did this instruction come from, and do you know where they got their information from? Did they know something official, or were they just going with what they thought looked right?  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-17-2004 06:27 AM                        If I remember correctly, the instruction came from whoever had written '1-66' on the can label. Given that it was an NFTVA print (it was one of the '360 classic films' series so it never even went outside the BFI) we assumed that the author of that label knew what he or she was doing: and given that 1-66 looked right on the screen I had no reason to question it. But I agree entirely - if the negative cutter simply wrote the intended aspect ratio for projection clearly onto the head leader of every reel of the cut camera negative (or its equivalent in the digital intermediate stage) there would be no need for any of this 'guess the ratio' crap.  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 05-16-2014 03:30 AM                 It has been 3436 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schulz Expert Film Handler Posts: 122 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: May 2007 posted 05-16-2014 03:30 AM                     I just ran an archived print of this from Universal and the correct aspect ratio is 1.66. The print was struck in 2007 so it is much newer than any prints that would've been run from anyone else in this old thread. It also had a hard-matte that lined up with 1.66 and the 1.85 aperture plate seemed extremely tight on the title cards if not possibly cutting some of them off at the very top and bottom of the frame had it been projected that way. I hope this information helps if anyone is fortunate enough to run an actual 35mm print sometime down the road.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.