Aspect ratio of British films (from the 50's to the 70's)

[Stan Cortbeeck]

Hello, everyone, I've been wondering for a long time what the aspect ratio of some British films from the 50s, 60s and 70s was. As far as I know, in the UK the aspect ratio for non-anamorphic films was 1.75:1 from the 1950s onwards. However, I have recently read that each UK distributor had a preferred ratio.

I know that in the USA, from about 1957 onwards, 1.85:1 became the standard aspect ratio and I think it was the same in the UK in the 1970s, but I don't know what happened in earlier decades in British cinema. For example, I would like to know, among other titles, how Michael Powell's Peeping Tom was projected in the 60s in UK cinemas. 1.75:1 or 1.66:1?

Perhaps someone had the opportunity to screen a 35mm print of this film and knows its correct ratio for sure.

[Ed Gordon]

Peeping Tom was filmed and presented in 1.66:1. Some films were shot to allow multiple aspect ratios. For instance, On The Waterfront was filmed to accommodate 1.66 : 1 and 1.85 : 1.

You can look up film aspect ratios at imdb.com. You can also find many videos on aspect ratios on youtube.com.

[Stan Cortbeeck]

I remember that video. Several documents from the 1950s show that On the Waterfront was projected in 1.85:1:

lHlNT8wv_o.png

I had assumed that Peeping Tom was filmed and presented in 1.66:1, but I have my doubts. It is a 1960 film. In 1960 and 1962 virtually no films were shown in 1.66:1. In 1963 and 1964, absolutely no films were projected in that ratio in UK:

mOZiJson_o.png

hVlOUG0F_o.png

For example, in 1964, "A Hard Day's Night" was 1.75:1:

MZfx4xJ2_o.png

These images come from the old 3D Film Archive website. According to that, it is possible that Peeping Tom was shot and projected in 1.75:1. I think that Anglo-Amalgamated films were projected that way but I cannot be sure. Perhaps some projections were in 1.66:1 and most in 1.75:1. I wonder if the same thing happened with the Hammer films. It is really difficult to find any document from those decades that clears up all doubt.

[Allan Young]

In 1963 and 1964, absolutely no films were projected in that ratio in UK:

This is quite simply incorrect. From Russia With Love (1963) and Goldfinger (1964) were both 1.66:1. There are other examples.

[Leo Enticknap]

From the Rank VistaVision days onwards, British studios tended to adopt a "shoot to protect" approach, enabling films to be shown in anything from 1.66 to 1.85 without boom mikes being visible or egregious cropping. If no "correct" ratio was indicated on the cans or leaders, I would often make a decision by placing 1.66, 1.75, and 1.85 aperture plates over a text heavy frame of the opening credits on a light box, looking at them through a loupe, and observing which was the best fit. If the credit cards fitted into 1.85 with a reasonable margin above and below, that was generally what I would use in the absence of any evidence suggesting something else.

From the late '80s onwards a significant number of British productions financed by TV money were shot on Super 16, often intended for theatrical presentation in 1.66. But by that time, only a tiny handful of arthouses had lenses and plates for 1.66. If you saw one of those movies at an Odeon or a UCI, it would be in 1.85.

[Leo Enticknap]

Some examples:

image.png

1964 movie; from a DVD formatted as 16:9 / 1.78 (I'm guessing because this is the native aspect ratio of the home video format), but as you can see, 1.85 would clearly fit.

1977 movie; from a 4:3 PAL TV offair recording. I'm guessing that the prints were full gate, but again, 1.85 would fit:
image.png

1955 movie: this will not fit 1.85, and 1.66 only just:
image.png

Admittedly, this is a bit of a blunt instrument approach to identifying the correct AR to use in projection, but I have had to resort to it in the absence of any definitive information (especially when I was working in British arthouses back in the '90s and early '00s, when that definitive information was not readily available at the click of a mouse).

[Stan Cortbeeck]

This is quite simply incorrect. From Russia With Love (1963) and Goldfinger (1964) were both 1.66:1. There are other examples.

I honestly don't know, maybe that graph is wrong. According to what we can see there, there were 0% 1.66:1 films in 1963 and 1964. Regarding James Bond, all I can find is that the films you cite were 1.75:1 in the UK:

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discus...idescreen-16-9

The term "widescreen" has a distinct meaning in cinema. To a projectionist (remember them?) "widescreen" meant, in the UK 1.75:1, which was the UK standard for non-anamorphic projection (NOT 1.66:1). The wider screen ratio was "'Scope", an abbreviation of CinemaScope and used for any anamorphic print with a 2:1 squeeze producing a 2.35:1 ratio on screen. Most cinemas had variable side masking which moved out for 'Scope. The first three Bond films , Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger were filmed "flat" for widescreen presentation at whatever ratio had been adopted. In the UK this was 1.75:1, in the US 1.85:1. The width of the image was the same, at 1.75:1 you got a little more image at top and bottom of the frame than with 1.85. From Thunderball, the films were shot in Panavision, an anamorphic process, and presented at 2.35:1. For some reason the first two Roger Moore films, Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun, reverted to non-anamorphic widescreen and were thus presented at 1.75/1.85:1, but from The Spy Who Loved Me onwards all Bond films have been 2.35:1.

From the Rank VistaVision days onwards, British studios tended to adopt a "shoot to protect" approach, enabling films to be shown in anything from 1.66 to 1.85 without boom mikes being visible or egregious cropping. If no "correct" ratio was indicated on the cans or leaders, I would often make a decision by placing 1.66, 1.75, and 1.85 aperture plates over a text heavy frame of the opening credits on a light box, looking at them through a loupe, and observing which was the best fit. If the credit cards fitted into 1.85 with a reasonable margin above and below, that was generally what I would use in the absence of any evidence suggesting something else.

From the late '80s onwards a significant number of British productions financed by TV money were shot on Super 16, often intended for theatrical presentation in 1.66. But by that time, only a tiny handful of arthouses had lenses and plates for 1.66. If you saw one of those movies at an Odeon or a UCI, it would be in 1.85.

I think that explains it all. There wouldn't be just one ratio, then Peeping Tom could have been projected at both 1.66:1: and 1.75:1.

[Allan Young]

I honestly don't know, maybe that graph is wrong. According to what we can see there, there were 0% 1.66:1 films in 1963 and 1964. Regarding James Bond, all I can find is that the films you cite were 1.75:1 in the UK:

Yes, the graph is wrong and no, those Bond films were projected at 1.66:1 in the UK. Quoting a random dude from an internet forum doesn't aid your case.

[Ed Gordon]

We need to keep in mind that the aspect ratio the film is shown in is ultimately decided by the projectionist. Just because IMDB says the aspect ratio is 1.66 does not mean it was always shown that way.

[Randy Stankey]

When I ran the projector at Mercyhurst, I had bespoke flat/scope lenses and apertures but I also had a third lens for other ratios as needed.

The screen was common height with moveable side masking. The third lens was set to make the image for the vertical size of the screen. I just made new aperture plates for whichever ratios I needed. I had plates for 1.33, 1.66(7) and 1.75. I think that would cover just about any aspect ratio that I was likely to run into. I suppose, I could have filed a new plate for any other oddball ratio I might have come across.

[James Biggins]

You can look up film aspect ratios at imdb.com. You can also find many videos on aspect ratios on youtube.com.

I wouldn’t trust imdb information on aspect ratios. It’s often inaccurate.

[Stan Cortbeeck]

Yes, the graph is wrong and no, those Bond films were projected at 1.66:1 in the UK. Quoting a random dude from an internet forum doesn't aid your case.

No doubt there is a lot of misinformation on some internet forums but there are publications that claim that the ratio for Dr. No was 1.75:1 in the UK. This is one of them:

Criterion Laserdisc (ABOUT THE TRANSFER):

The Criterion Collection is proud to present Dr. No in its original wide-screen format. (Because Dr. No’s British 1.75:1 ratio resembles traditional 1.85:1 ratio, the film will appear only slightly letterboxed on some receivers.)

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qqgAA...o/s-l1600.webp

But as mentioned above, in the UK it seems there wouldn't be just one ratio. I remember now the document that the great Stanley Kubrick sent to the projectionists in the UK asking them to screen Barry Lyndon in 1.66:1 and in no event at less than 1-1:75:

“Barry Lyndon” was photographed in 1-1:66 aspect ratio. Please be sure you project it at this ratio, and in no event at less than 1-1:75.

https://somecamerunning.typepad.com/...3160327970c-pi

I understand that you are pointing out that those early James Bond films were only screened in 1.66:1 in the UK.

[Jim Cassedy]

I've worked a lot of Foreign Film Festivals, and I know I've run a lot of British and
French films (in 35mm) from the 1960's that were mostly in 1:66. Also, many of
them, especially if they were from the Pathè or St Cloud laboratories in Paris,
had what I called "French Cues". They weren't in the usual spot in the upper
right of the frame, but almos in the center of the image on the right side.
I'm not exactly sure why this was done, but once, except that once I accidentally
ran a 1:85 print with normal cues at 1:66. At that venue, only tiny portion of
the cue was visible on screen, and if you were slightly mis-framed, you might
not see it at all. Several months ago, I ran a print of an early 1980's American
release that had been made at Rank Labs in London, and that too had "French
Cues" I don;t remember the title, but the photo below is of another print I ran
last year that thad "French Cues"

FrenchCues.jpg

[Allan Young]

No doubt there is a lot of misinformation on some internet forums but there are publications that claim that the ratio for Dr. No was 1.75:1 in the UK. This is one of them:

Criterion Laserdisc (ABOUT THE TRANSFER):

The Criterion Collection is proud to present Dr. No in its original wide-screen format. (Because Dr. No’s British 1.75:1 ratio resembles traditional 1.85:1 ratio, the film will appear only slightly letterboxed on some receivers.)

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qqgAA...o/s-l1600.webp

Mistakes happen. And this particular mistake was fixed for the Blu-Ray release.

I suspect you already knew this.

[Stan Cortbeeck]

All is clear. Thank you all for shedding light on this issue.