tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post6089767180282514703..comments2024-01-10T00:07:48.304+00:00Comments on Cathode Ray Tube: BRITISH CULT CLASSICS: The Curse of Frankenstein / 3-Disc Double Play Blu-Ray ReviewFrank Collinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-11153604526694198042012-10-16T13:23:00.948+01:002012-10-16T13:23:00.948+01:00Frank; you were brave enough to stick your neck ri...Frank; you were brave enough to stick your neck right out with regard to the AR problems, and now you're vindicated totally. Excellent - bravo.John Hodsonhttp://filmjournal.net/johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-68520228647844259352012-10-16T11:46:32.445+01:002012-10-16T11:46:32.445+01:00Thanks Bob for all your tenacious research! Thanks Bob for all your tenacious research! Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-2271242558215377272012-10-16T03:10:09.525+01:002012-10-16T03:10:09.525+01:00New documents have been discovered which confirm t...New documents have been discovered which confirm that Exclusive was composing for 1.65:1 widescreen, with a common top. <br /><br />Please see this post for the relative data: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/319469/aspect-ratio-research/1140#post_3989270Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16373645845945315879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-83861772217986892412012-10-11T07:03:02.927+01:002012-10-11T07:03:02.927+01:00Great review Frank, extremely informative. In rega...Great review Frank, extremely informative. In regards to Bob's last comment, to take supposition on the IP utilized even further, is it possible that parts of the film were not only cropped on this IP, but segments that appear to have an overabundance of headroom be from open matte shots that were intended to be matted, but were left open for this IP? Not an expert, just curious :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-46624536067257569862012-10-09T22:35:01.730+01:002012-10-09T22:35:01.730+01:00I would have thought Jack Asher knew what he was d...I would have thought Jack Asher knew what he was doing. Just a pity we can't ask him! Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-91311145018665391212012-10-09T21:49:15.083+01:002012-10-09T21:49:15.083+01:00IF this was intended for 1.37:1 in the UK (which i...IF this was intended for 1.37:1 in the UK (which it was not) can anyone explain why it has a 1.66:1 BBFC card at the beginning?<br /><br />Also, the titles are blocked for 1.85:1. Just saying.<br /><br />It's possible the IP utilized for this new transfer was created for either television or 16mm printing and has been optically zoomed in.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16373645845945315879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-1361050391943561842012-10-09T18:18:43.948+01:002012-10-09T18:18:43.948+01:00John, there is another alternative - that Asher si...John, there is another alternative - that Asher simply composed for 1.37:1, as Hammer have said all along.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-8560459795183103352012-10-09T16:10:00.401+01:002012-10-09T16:10:00.401+01:00If there has been no incompetence with regards to ...If there has been no incompetence with regards to the framing as presented by Hammer at 1.66:1, then the only conclusion, from Frank's comments here and accompanying screenshots, is that Jack Asher was incompetent with regards to his widescreen framing. And I don't believe that - or Hammer's conclusion that it was framed principally for Academy - for a second. The whole thing is quite bizarre.John Hodsonhttp://filmjournal.net/johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-5575209698374916772012-10-09T15:13:50.548+01:002012-10-09T15:13:50.548+01:00Thanks, Richard.
Indeed, it is a decision for th...Thanks, Richard. <br /><br />Indeed, it is a decision for those releasing the BDs and DVDs as to whether they should alter the framing because we can no longer consult the likes of Jack Asher. I assume Hammer did not want to 'cheat' the framing with the 1.66:1 as WB did with the 1.85:1 <br /><br />I doubt we'll ever get a definitive answer to these questions. Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-9904958686845012712012-10-09T12:51:33.706+01:002012-10-09T12:51:33.706+01:00Thanks for the reply Frank. Apologies I was referr...Thanks for the reply Frank. Apologies I was referring to John Hodson's comment that the film has been incompetently framed. I read a lot of reviews talking about keeping the film as it was shown at the first screening, not destroying the grain for example. To my mind which ever ratio is used it should be a centre extraction as I said in my last email because you couldn't move the gate in projection to see more head room etc. Although it might be a better framed shot, is it for WB to decide this over the Director/DOP. I guess we will never know for definite because we can't ask the Dir/DOP. Thanks for putting across the differing views though. <br /><br />In terms of Anoms posting this morning at 9am it is not possible to adjust the 1.37 framing up or down as you are seeing the whole frame that was originally shot unless he wants the frame bar in picture. Let’s hope these 'competent telecine operators' he speaks of know this.<br />Richard Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-46289171374401713092012-10-09T11:32:38.698+01:002012-10-09T11:32:38.698+01:00At this stage it would be wonderful if Hammer coul...At this stage it would be wonderful if Hammer could produce for us an image of the scan of the I/P right up to (and even past) the edges of the 35mm frame, and the same frame from the 1.37:1 Blu-Ray Disc version. We could then see how much/little has been cropped.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-8873100969563152572012-10-09T10:56:40.978+01:002012-10-09T10:56:40.978+01:00An interesting and alternative view point.
I had ...An interesting and alternative view point.<br /><br />I had presumed, as many have, that they'd got the framing on the 1.37:1 correct and issues stemmed from an incorrect 1.66:1 framing. Has this been discussed/evidenced elsewhere?<br /><br />What with the OAR debate and the grade on the DVD being different and producing a sharper picture than the one on BD, I have my doubts Hammer will recall it as they are adamant that what they have done is correct. Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-20182579797893554492012-10-09T09:04:43.097+01:002012-10-09T09:04:43.097+01:00Hi Frank, I think actually the 1.37:1 version is u...Hi Frank, I think actually the 1.37:1 version is unbalanced, and since they stuck a center extraction in 1.66:1 from the 1.37:1 already scanned and unbalanced version, they botched the framing.<br /><br />The 1.37:1 is adjusted to the bottom to avoid too much excessive headroom.<br /><br />You presume the 1.37:1 is perfectly framed an center adjusted, where it's not.<br /><br />The original widescreen DVD is correctly center extracted at 1.85:1.<br /><br />Hammer probably needs to recall this disc (especially as the DVD is sharper than the Blu version) and redo the whole thing from scratch with competent telecine operators.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-11653379127069324462012-10-09T00:44:02.737+01:002012-10-09T00:44:02.737+01:00Richard I'm not 'making sweeping statement...Richard I'm not 'making sweeping statements to jump on the bandwagon'. I'm simply reporting what I see with my own eyes on DVD.<br /><br />Clearly what has emerged during the on going discussions is that masking for projection in cinema at 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 is tight and crops off heads in both cases.<br /><br />1.66:1 as composed on the current disc, replicating the masking you'd find in cinema projection, chops heads off as Marcus Hearn has clearly acknowledged.<br /><br />However, I don't think it works as a ratio on DVD unless the composition is moved to the top of the frame as has been suggested.<br /><br />That's obviously what Warner did with their 1.85:1 DVD as that avoids chopping heads off even though I'd agree that it is still tight. Therefore, as has been pointed out, by doing this the Warner DVD version does not replicate the 1.85:1 widescreen cinema projection. It is a manipulated DVD version of it.<br /><br />In the review, I am not talking about how the film would have looked if projected at those ratios. I discuss what they look like on DVD. I'm talking about how the way the ratio has been manipulated for the Warner DVD for 1.85:1 and how it has been accomplished very differently from the 1.66:1 applied on the new set. The 1.85:1 has been manipulated to allow for head room whereas this seems to have been ignored on the new BD and DVD's 1.66:1 ratio.<br /><br />If you check my review I personally do not say that 1.85:1 was the ratio that The Curse of Frankenstein was prepared and projected in. Those deductions are suggestions from Bob Furmanek and I have also posted Marcus's own response to that in the review where he believes the film is best seen in 1.37:1<br /><br />In my view, the 1.66:1 ratio on this DVD set needs to shift to the top of the frame to allow more head room. But then that would not be true to its projected ratio if we take on board the information in the forum debates. Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-83206710104133659142012-10-08T22:52:15.980+01:002012-10-08T22:52:15.980+01:00Hi
Sorry but you are stating that 1.66:1 is chopp...Hi<br /><br />Sorry but you are stating that 1.66:1 is chopping of heads and therefore is incorrect as a ratio, the correct ratio being 185:1. This ratio would actual give a tighter crop and you would lose more of the head and foot room. John Hodson talks of incompetent framing, however there was no tilting or panning when projecting a film. The projector gate is locked so Hearn's comment is correct.<br /><br />'I would argue that this is probably how the film would have appeared when it was masked at this ratio on its original projection'<br /><br />In fact if you mask off your television with gaffer tape 1.85:1 looks too tight and you lose so much of the production design that seems to me to be specifically placed in frame.<br /><br />It does annoy me when people make sweeping statements just to jump on the band wagon.Richard Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-36437213954432085922012-10-08T21:55:25.777+01:002012-10-08T21:55:25.777+01:00Hi
I am confused if the film was framed for 1.85 ...Hi<br /><br />I am confused if the film was framed for 1.85 wouldn't the heads be cut off even more.<br /><br />Cheers RickRichard Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-42524322285106434982012-10-08T14:41:21.165+01:002012-10-08T14:41:21.165+01:00A quick word about the aspect ratio & framing....A quick word about the aspect ratio & framing. The one thing we know for sure is that the WB 1.85:1 framing is wrong (even if 1.85:1 is the correct ration).<br /><br />In the '50s the 1.37:1 viewfinders were marked with guidelines at 1.85:1. These guidelines were equidistant from the top and bottom. In other words, when the 1.37:1 image was cropped to 1.85:1, an equal amount would be cut from both top and bottom. The same would be true of projection; 1.85:1 masking plates masked equal amounts from the top and bottom of the image.<br /><br />Studying the Hammer 1.37:1 frames and the WB 1.85:1 image, it's clear that the top of the WB 1.85 image is pretty much the top of the 1.37:1 image. This is known as 'Common Top Line'. It's a practice applied to modern Super 35 films, but it wasn't used on open matte 1.85:1 films in the '50s.<br /><br />So, when the director & DoP composed the film (IF they composed it for 1.85:1) they didn't compose it as seen on the WB disc. And if you saw it in the cinema in the '50s, it wouldn't be masked like the WB disc.<br /><br />I've posted an example of what central 1.85:1 cropping would do to Curse of Frankenstein here:<br /><br />http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/319469/aspect-ratio-research/870#post_3985666<br /><br />Given what that shows, in this as well as other comparisons, my personal opinion is that 1.85:1 is not correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-27139785224086667522012-10-06T20:03:11.054+01:002012-10-06T20:03:11.054+01:00I've just read the comments from Mr. Hearn reg...I've just read the comments from Mr. Hearn regarding Exclusive/Hammer and their changeover to widescreen composition. <br /><br />Please see these posts for more information and documentation concerning Exclusive's change to widescreen cinematography:<br /><br /> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/319469/aspect-ratio-research/870#post_3985011<br /><br />http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/319469/aspect-ratio-research/870#post_3985024<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16373645845945315879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-37757577403062343762012-10-06T15:33:41.467+01:002012-10-06T15:33:41.467+01:00I have to say that Marcus Hearn's comments app...I have to say that Marcus Hearn's comments appear to fly in the face of all extant facts. Disregarding the 1.85:1 v 1.66:1 argument (and the arguments for the former are compelling if not cast iron), it's disappointing to read that Hearn, whose work I admire, sticking to the Academy line, whilst damning a 1.66:1 presentation that has plainly been incompetently framed.<br /><br />I want to see the film how Jack Asher composed it. He didn't compose his shots principally for Academy, and from the screenshots in Frank's superb review, he certainly didn't frame his widescreen shots as seen here.John Hodsonhttp://filmjournal.net/johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-27592069583099886092012-10-06T00:57:39.196+01:002012-10-06T00:57:39.196+01:00I have been in touch with Marcus Hearn, Hammer'...I have been in touch with Marcus Hearn, Hammer's historian, and he has very kindly offered some comments on the aspect ratios and composing for 1.66:1 which I have now added into the above review's discussion of the 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 aspect ratios. Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-67567942558115177142012-10-04T22:41:52.752+01:002012-10-04T22:41:52.752+01:00I've done some additional research and want to...I've done some additional research and want to share this with you.<br /><br />Sometime in 1955, Exclusive had adopted 1.85:1 as their widescreen standard. Their first two productions in 1956 (X THE UNKNOWN, QUATERMASS II) were composed for this ratio and the next film to go into production, THE STEEL HELMET, was composed for 2.35:1. <br /><br />By September 1956, the dust on the various aspect ratios had finally settled after more than three years of fluctuation. 1.85:1 had become the accepted non-anamorphic standard in the U.S.<br /><br />CURSE began filming on Monday, November 19. Only eight days later on November 27, a distribution deal was announced with Warner Bros. in Daily Variety. <br /><br />It's VERY likely that WB, now funding the production, would have instructed Exclusive to compose for 1.85:1. <br /><br />The world premiere took place at the Warner Theatre on Leicester Square which had been converted to widescreen sometime in late 1953. <br /><br />When it premiered in the U.S. the following June, 1.85:1 is the ratio that was recommended to exhibitors.<br /><br />Therefore, the badly matted 1.66:1 version on this disc is not only framed improperly which is why heads are getting clipped in medium shots, it's the wrong ratio. <br /><br />Bob Furmanek<br />www.3dfilmarchive.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16373645845945315879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-54888412004742244972012-10-04T14:27:08.592+01:002012-10-04T14:27:08.592+01:00Hi, Robert
Yes, and it's sad that the documen...Hi, Robert<br /><br />Yes, and it's sad that the documentary about TALES of FRANKENSTEIN didn't get included here. Because it is a fascinating addendum to Hammer's development of Frankenstein. <br /><br />Agreed, STOLEN FACE and FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE are important steps in Hammer's development and in Fisher's themes. Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-77955369458233615772012-10-04T14:06:44.527+01:002012-10-04T14:06:44.527+01:00Yes, TALES OF FRANKENSTEIN is an old telecine tran...Yes, TALES OF FRANKENSTEIN is an old telecine transfer. Unfortunately we weren't able to locate/access a print in order to do a fresh transfer (and we did look) for this release. <br /><br />This is the first time, however, that TALES has been released in the UK, and it is an important part of the Frankenstein development, along with FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE. Robert JE Simpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697971998442516334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-54947016327750099512012-10-04T00:30:31.362+01:002012-10-04T00:30:31.362+01:00Bob - thanks for your positive comments. I've ...Bob - thanks for your positive comments. I've amended accordingly and thank you for your detailed response. <br /><br />I'm not an expert and it's always good to hear from someone who can provide this kind of detail. Much appreciated. Frank Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00680654042528560764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3737235139994190228.post-65423211292000069442012-10-03T17:49:17.605+01:002012-10-03T17:49:17.605+01:00Frank: I enjoyed your article and have one correct...Frank: I enjoyed your article and have one correction: this was not Exclusive's first color film. The first was MEN OF SHERWOOD FOREST, photographed for 1.66:1 widescreen and Eastman color in May, 1954.<br /><br />As a matter of studio policy, Exclusive/Hammer began composing for 1.66:1 widescreen while still protecting for the 1.37:1 standard ratio in August, 1953. <br /><br />Their first production composed for widescreen was HEAT WAVE, which rolled August 4, 1953.<br /><br />Bob Furmanek<br />www.3dfilmarchive.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16373645845945315879noreply@blogger.com