Original Aspect Ratios

[ed rooney]

Is there a reliable site that provides details on the OAR of films, as I don't really trust the information provided by e-tailors and imdb doesn't seem to list them.

Also if anyone knows the OAR of Bull Durham (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6305090645/qid%3D1002803148/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/107-5504303-3970155) I would be grateful, and also why it seems to be OOP.

[Michael Brooke]

It's incredibly hard getting definitive answers on this - and I speak as a former repertory cinema manager who occasionally had to work out the aspect ratio through squinting at the 35mm print!

So it's unlikely you'll find a more reliable source than the IMDB, simply because the only way to get a definitive answer is to examine the actual print, and even then it won't be conclusive.

[SqueakyG]

The IMDb is usually reliable. Just look under "Technical details" and it will tell you about the lenses, printing process, OAR, etc. The only trouble is when you want to know about rare or unknown films that not many people have seen, because nobody will have supplied the IMDb with technical information.

[ed rooney]

Thanks Michael and Squeaky - if I'd actually opened my eyes I'd have found the "technical details" section :o .

[Gary Couzens]

<i>Bull Durham</i> is 1.85:1. I don't know why it's out of print.

It's a safe bet that commercially-released US films from about 1955 onwards that aren't in Scope will be in this ratio. Having said that, there are exceptions to this, but it's the nearest to a rule of thumb that I can think of. (That's the cinema ratio I'm referring to, regardless of what ratio the negative was filmed in - often 4:3 or 1.66:1 - or what ratio the director prefers for home viewing.)

[Ben Martin]

i tend to rely on Widescreen Review (http://www.widescreenreview.com/) for this sort of information. they provide info on the type of film used, original theatrical aspect ration and then both the anamorphic and letterbox aspect ratios (usually the same) on dvd. lots of other technical details are also listed, of particular interest being the bitrates of the various soundtrack options.

[Michael Brooke]

Just to expand on Gary's rule of thumb:

If it was made before 1952 in any country, it's virtually certain to be 4:3 (and exceptions like Abel Gance's <I>Napoleon</I> are generally famous for being exceptions)

If it's a mainstream commercial American or Italian film made from the mid-1950s onwards, it's almost certain to be either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.

If it's a low-budget independent American film, it could be anything from 4:3 to 2.35:1 - though if it's a horror or exploitation film made after the early 1980s, the chances are it's open-matte 4:3, since video provided most of the market for these titles.

If it's a European film (Italy is the exception), the chances are it's 1.66:1 or 2.35:1, though 1.85:1 is not unknown, particularly in the UK, and 4:3 is still often used, particularly for films with extensive TV funding. European films are the hardest to work out!

If it's a Russian film made after the 1950s, the chances are it's 4:3 or 2.35:1 - though more recently (mid-1980s onwards) 1.66:1 has been increasingly used.

If it's a 1970s Hong Kong film, it's almost certain to be 2.35:1. If it was made from the early 1980s onwards, it's probably 1.85:1, though 2.35:1 is still occasionally used.

Obviously, there are countless exceptions to all the above - but that should help you make at least an educated guess.

[ed rooney]

I need more detail Michael :D .

[Shingster]

This thread seems like a good question to ask this:
This is a long shot, but does anyone know if Glengarry Glen Ross was shot in 2.35:1, or was it shot in 4:3 then cropped?
I'm asking this because the DVD it's the U.K in a month & it looks like it's 4:3.
This never struck me as the kind of film that would warrant a 2.35:1 ratio.

[Michael Brooke]

<I>Glengarry Glen Ross</I> was shot in Super 35, so in theory the negative area might well be as narrow as 1.66:1.

That said, it's a moot point whether the DVD is based on the full negative area or whether it's panned and scanned from a 2.35:1 print - if the latter, I'd avoid it like the plague, but if it's the former, it probably looks OK.

And of course this isn't the sort of film where stylish visuals are that important...

[Shingster]

It's RRP is £8.99 which suggests that it'll be P&S from 2.35:1. Guess I'll have to wait for the reviews.

[Gary Couzens]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
If it's a low-budget independent American film, it could be anything from 4:3 to 2.35:1 - though if it's a horror or exploitation film made after the early 1980s, the chances are it's open-matte 4:3, since video provided most of the market for these titles.

Though if it was intended for a cinema release (even if it didn't get one), it'll be intended to be cropped to 1.85:1.

If it's a European film (Italy is the exception), the chances are it's 1.66:1 or 2.35:1, though 1.85:1 is not unknown, particularly in the UK, and 4:3 is still often used, particularly for films with extensive TV funding. European films are the hardest to work out!

UK - if they weren't in 2.35:1, British films tended to be in 1.66:1 up until about 1970. Around that time, UK cinemas adopted 1.75:1 as a projection ratio as a "compromise" between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 - until quite recently, most UK commercial cinemas could only show 1.75:1 and 2.35:1. From then on, many low-budget British films were composed for 1.75:1. This is very close to the widescreen TV ratio of 16:9 (1.78:1).

However, quite a few British films have been in 1.85:1, especially if made on higher budgets, with American money and/or for US major studios, aimed at a wide international audience, or simply because the director and DP prefer the ratio.

1.66:1 is occasionally still used - directors who have favoured this ratio include Stanley Kubrick, John Boorman and Terence Davies.

Eastern Europe - Hungary used 4:3 until well into the 1980s, then switched to 1.66:1. Poland tended to use 1.66:1 rather earlier. In both countries, there are notable examples of 2.35:1.

Elsewhere in the world...

Iran - almost exclusively 1.66:1. I have so far seen only one Iranian film in a different ratio: Mohsen Makhmalbaf's <i>A Moment of Innocence</i> (which I saw a week ago on video), which is in 1.85:1.

Australia/New Zealand - 1.75:1 or 2.35:1. However, I have seen some films in 1.85:1, for presumably similar reasons as the UK (above). Peter Weir and Bruce Beresford seem to favour this ratio, when they aren't shooting in Scope.

[jonathan.e]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
And of course this isn't the sort of film where stylish visuals are that important...

Granted it’s a more character driven piece than many other films but the director and cinematographer, James Foley and Juan Ruiz Anchía respectively, worked hard to lift the movie out of the somewhat static staginess that invests a lot of Mamet’s work. The picture is literally drenched in colour in some shots particularly those inside the bar that the Glengarry men frequent and the 2.35:1 framing helps in narrowing the perspective for the viewer especially in the booth shots of Pacino and Pryce. Regardless of how it was shot this is how it was released and transferred to Laserdisc (my copy of which will have to be pried from my cold, dead fingers unless a decent DVD is released) and it’s how everyone is familiar with it. Opening up the frame just because it was shot on Super 35 is not a valid reason for doing so and would destroy the composition and to a large degree the concentration of colour in some of the shots and would be as bankrupt an idea as Pan & Scanning it.

I’d have to disagree, this is a very visually stylish movie.

BTW, there was a lot of widescreen experimentation prior to the early 50s so it’s not really fair to single out just Gance’s movie as the only significant one. For more info see John Belton’s superb book:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0674952618.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Widescreen Cinema (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674952618/thedvdforums-20)