Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Urgent request

This is topic Urgent request - 'The Birds' A.R. in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006773

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 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.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 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.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 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).

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 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.

Posted by Daniel Alt (Member # 2303) on 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!"

Posted by Daniel Alt (Member # 2303) on 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.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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. [Eek!]

[ 12-15-2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 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. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 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

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 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.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 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?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-16-2014, 03:30 AM:

It has been 3436 days since the last post.

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 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.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-16-2014, 10:13 AM:

And as coincidence would have it, I was in the booth with Mike at the Aero last night at that very same show! 1.66 looked perfect, both in terms of titles and the framing of the actual shots. The process shot of the crow's POV just before it (and lots of others, obviously) dive bombs the car fire stuck in my mind: it hovers just below the top of the 1.66 frame before swooping away bottom left, with no vertical cropping. It looked totally composed that way to me.

Bizarre for a Hollywood feature made as late as 1963 to be 1.66: the only guess we came up with is that Hitch came to like 1.66 in his VistaVision days, and used it again for The Birds.

Psycho, though, looks a clear 1.85 to me. My wife was looking at Hitchcock last week (as in, the Anthony Hopkins adaptation of the Stephen Rebello book about the production of Psycho), as a result of which I re-watched my BD of Psycho very recently. It's mastered in 1.85 (as in, digital 16:9 with a thin letterbox to make the image true 1.85), and the framing looks perfect.

Maybe the preference for 1.66 came from Robert Burks, who shot all Hitchcock's movies from Strangers on a Train to Marnie, apart from Psycho (which was made with his TV crew).

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-16-2014, 10:24 AM:

Last time I ran a 35mm print of The Birds, I ran it at 1:85 and it was fine.

I agree with what Frank Angel said about not relying on IMDB.

I can't tell you how many times I've discovered bad aspect ratio info on their website.

Posted by Sean Goodrich (Member # 475) on 05-16-2014, 11:54 AM:

Just because it's hard matted to 1.66 doesn't mean that's the intended ratio.

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 05-16-2014, 05:35 PM:

From Boxoffice:

1.85:1 had become the accepted non-anamorphic widescreen standard in the U.S. by the fall of 1956. Right around the same time, 1.75:1 had become the recommended UK standard.

Also, VistaVision prints were recommended initially for 1.85:1 and then 2:1, never 1.66:1.

More documented information on the transition to widescreen in 1953 can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 05-20-2014, 07:41 AM:

I've never noticed the matts come in on prints of Psycho during the shower scene. I have access to 35mm, 16mm and the trailer.........I'll check this out.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-20-2014, 12:53 PM:

I've run this a few times as 1.85 and it looked fine. I never assume spherical is 1.85 but in the absence of any concrete information -- e.g. info printed into the leader, or multiple web sources agreeing -- I made a guess based on it being a non-anamorphic American release from the 1960s. One thing I looked at was titles.

I'll agree that it is a grainy movie.

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 05-23-2014, 07:56 PM:

I remember many a drive-in I was familiar with (either servicing or as projectionist) in the mid-late 70s used 1.66 or 1.75 apertures. Also some of the .flat. films I ran in 1.37 were multi- ratio and you would see a little frame locator mark in the beginning of each reel that framed you to 1.66 & 1.85 this was most predominant on Paramount features and cartoons. These were 1950s vintage releases.It was our theatres policy to always run in the largest ratio possible and we would generally only use our 1,85 plates when the print was matted. I remember the bands were marked with a notation something like 'universal projection ratio' or similar note that you could project it at different ratios.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-23-2014, 10:58 PM:

Are you sure you're not referring to the VistaVision framing guide? It kinda looks like the letter "F"

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/paramount_frame_guide.gif

I don't think 1.37 was a suitable ratio for those titles though.

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 05-24-2014, 12:16 PM:

VistaVision was initially recommended for 1.85:1 and later titles were 2:1.

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 05-25-2014, 10:06 PM:

thanks! you jogged my feeble old memory, yes it was the mark, in fact i went to my booth and dug out a vista vision intro and product reel i have. I looked and the framing indicator was right there, however that reel is 1.37 ratio throughout and not letterboxed anywhere it is early as it explains the new marvel of vista vision and has trailers from the first 6 upcoming features. I also see the marks on some cartoons i have of the same vintage. It was fun to watch Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis (Three Ring Circus)on the screen again! Plus Cary Grant and Princess Grace in Hitchcock's 'It Takes A Thief' plus a few more greats in VV.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-26-2014, 01:01 AM:

C.B.DeMille's 1956 "the Ten Commandments" had these "F" markings also at the head of each of the 11 reels.

Ran an "IB" of this film back in 1972.

Posted by Doug Thompson (Member # 6546) on 05-26-2014, 01:29 PM:

Back to the subject of the OP.