The Great Aspect Ratio Debate...is done forever.

[Fred Holywell]

He didn't call 1.85 an intermediate ratio so your point lacks entirely in fact from the quote.

Godard said, "I don't like the intermediate ratios." I take this to mean that he didn't like the ratios between 1.33 (1.37) and 2.35. What are the intermediate ratios he's referring to?

[knives]

1.66, 1.44, 1.75, etc. 1.33, 1.85, and 2.35 would be the 'normal' ratios. In fact his argument for using 1.33 is that it is an arbitrary difference from the most normal aspect ration of the day, 1.85.

[domino harvey]

He didn't call 1.85 an intermediate ratio so your point lacks entirely in fact from the quote.

Godard said, "I don't like the intermediate ratios." I take this to mean that he didn't like the ratios between 1.33 (1.37) and 2.35. What are the intermediate ratios he's referring to?

He didn't like them in 1962. It disproves your Breathless conjecture. It doesn't necessarily disprove any future films not yet made at the time of his statement. I do wonder why you're so fixated on the "intermediate ratio" output of a director who has notably worked almost entirely in either Academy or 'Scope though. For what it's worth I saw Godard's entry from Oldest Profession in a full-frame non-cropped transfer on some VHS release years ago separate from the other segments (I think it was a random collection of portmanteau segments from notable directors?)

[Fred Holywell]

1.66, 1.44, 1.75, etc. 1.33, 1.85, and 2.35 would be the 'normal' ratios. In fact his argument for using 1.33 is that it is an arbitrary difference from the most normal aspect ration of the day, 1.85.

That's new to me, thanks. Not familiar at all with 1.44.

[knives]

1.44 is relatively new and used only in Imax cameras ala 1.19 for early sound.

[Fred Holywell]

I do wonder why you're so fixated on the "intermediate ratio" output of a director who has notably worked almost entirely in either Academy or 'Scope though. For what it's worth I saw Godard's entry from Oldest Profession in a full-frame non-cropped transfer on some VHS release years ago separate from the other segments (I think it was a random collection of portmanteau segments from notable directors?)

Not fixated, merely curious, I'd say. Screen size or shape is a tool that a director has at his disposal, and Godard has some pretty strong opinions on the subject, so discussing it can often be interesting and informative... and this is the aspect ratio thread. It's interesting to me that Godard didn't like intermediate ratios in 1962, but may have changed his opinion a couple of years later -- or maybe not. I won't pursue this any further because I don't want to harp on the topic, but it is interesting.

"Le Plus vieux métier du monde" or "The Oldest Profession in the World" isn't much of a movie, but the Godard segment is probably the best of the bunch. The film's got a pretty nice cast (Moreau, Brialy, Karina, etc.) and an interesting group of directors (de Broca, Autant-Lara, Bolognini, etc.), but the thing ends up being rather dull in the end. I've seen the full-frame VHS and own the DVD, but haven't had an opportunity to compare the two. The disc does offer a pretty nice widescreen image, preferable imo to the open-matte one.

[Fred Holywell]

...like a sidenote to his career.

Speaking of Godard sidenotes, David, have you seen his episode from "Les plus belles escroqueries du monde" "The World's Most Beautiful Swindlers"? It features Jean Seberg, Charles Denner and Laszlo Szabo, plus Godard, himself, in the curious role of a fez-wearing Arab. I understand the segment was cut from the American release, and came out as a short. It still exists in the (possibly OOP) French DVD edition, which I'm trying to track down. It's one of the few pieces from Godard's sixties period that I haven't encountered yet, and it sounds like it could be a blast. Some of the other segments, with the likes of Deneuve, Cassel, Chabrol, Polanski, Gainsbough and Komeda, don't sound too shabby, either. What do you think of it? I'll probably pursue it anyway, but your suggestions are always enlightening.

[domino harvey]

I'm not David but I've seen it and it's probably the best of the 60s portmanteau films. I wrote about it and provided screencaps here. Last I heard Olive had the rights, so we might even see this one on Blu some day!

[EddieLarkin]

The concept doesn't make any sense to me. If you're making a movie during the post-widescreen era, but for whatever reason you decide to compose for 1.37:1, but then also "protect" it for widescreen showings...

Eddie, by "protect for widescreen", I meant keeping all the 'essential' visual info confined to an area that wouldn't be cropped out if widescreen masking were used.

I know. My point was, if you're "protecting" for widescreen, you're not composing for Academy at all. The concept of composing for one ratio and protecting for another, when working with a negative that is square in shape, only works if it's the wider ratio that is the primary.

[swo17]

if you're "protecting" for widescreen, you're not composing for Academy at all. The concept of composing for one ratio and protecting for another, when working with a negative that is square in shape, only works if it's the wider ratio that is the primary.

I don't know that that's always true. For instance, Season 2 of the show Angel was supposedly shot in widescreen, but composed for 4:3 and not protected for wider ratios. It was broadcast 4:3 but is presented on DVD in unprotected widescreen, leaving some pretty glaring errors where information on the sides was clearly never meant to be seen.

[EddieLarkin]

I don't know that that's always true. For instance, Season 2 of the show Angel was supposedly shot in widescreen, but composed for 4:3 and not protected for wider ratios. It was broadcast 4:3 but is presented on DVD in unprotected widescreen, leaving some pretty glaring errors where information on the sides was clearly never meant to be seen.

It's funny you mention that. I'm currently watching Buffy and Angel on DVD, and since I'm in the UK, seasons 4-7 of Buffy are also the "open matte" widescreen versions (you got the proper 4x3 versions in the U.S). In Season 4 of Buffy I have witnessed stage hands maneuvering props on the far side of the screen, it's ridiculous!

But yes, I should have mentioned the big exception is TV. But there is an important difference. In your example, Angel was shot in widescreen. The widescreen image is the full image, unlike film, where the full image is an approximately 4x3 print. So whilst composing in 4x3 and "protecting" for widescreen is possible on a show like Angel (albeit, in that example, very poorly!), now the opposite is not! Like before, it's one or other.

You could replicate this with some film processes, such as VistaVision, were again, the full image is wide (not that anyone would or did). VistaVision allows composure for 4x3, and protection for wide. But not the other way around. Standard 35mm allows for composure for wide, and protection of 4x3, but not the other way around.

Get me? I'm not sure if I'm being clear...

[Fred Holywell]

Last I heard Olive had the rights, so we might even see this one on Blu some day!

Great news, thanks, domino!

My point was, if you're "protecting" for widescreen, you're not composing for Academy at all. The concept of composing for one ratio and protecting for another, when working with a negative that is square in shape, only works if it's the wider ratio that is the primary.

Eddie, I wanted to track down some other uses of the phrase, "protect for widescreen" -- I figured I'd seen it somewhere before. I came up with two of them, both specific to 1.85 (which I think you'll agree is interchangeable with "widescreen" here), and both from Dave Kehr's great blogsite: http://www.davekehr.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The quotes, by two different individuals, apply to a 2008 discussion on the cropping of "Touch of Evil".

The general presumption that almost every non-’Scope American film was exhibited in 1.85 by 1958 — accurate as far as I know, but complicated by the fact that Welles was truculent enough to have composed for 1.33 anyway (while still “protecting” the frame for 1.85).

Still, I’m willing to entertain the possiblity that for some reason (it is Welles, after all!) Metty and Welles composed the film primarily for 1.33:1 despite 1.85:1 being the standard theatrical aspect ratio. In that case, they would have protected it for 1.85:1 regardless.

This may not mean too much, other than that the term's been used before by others, probably more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. Admittedly, the most common practice then was to compose for widescreen and protect for academy aspect ratio. But, as they say, we are talking Welles here...

[EddieLarkin]

Well I think it's telling that the only references you can find to this supposed "process" are from internet aspect ratio debates like this one, conducted in the home video age. I'd certainly be interested in historical references.

I no longer buy the theory that Welles composed ToE for Academy and "protected" for 1.85:1. I still think it's a valid way to watch the film, unique from other examples in that Welles spoke out against widescreen and rarely used it again (and certainly never used 'Scope). It's quite possible that he would have preferred to compose it Academy, and would today prefer to see it in its open matte presentation, but it's quite plain to me that the composition is for 1.85:1 throughout.

The open matte version is interesting, but the kicker for me is that it does not look anything like what a pre-53 ToE would have looked like. If it did, a widescreen matting would be impossible. Go try and watch Citizen Kane at 1.85:1!

This is the crux of my whole arguement, that "composing for Academy" and "composing for Academy and protecting for widescreen" result in completely different things. Whilst "composing for widescreen" and "composing for widescreen and protecting for Academy" result in the exact same thing.

[EddieLarkin]

I'm getting a little out of my depth with lenses, so forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. If they're using long lenses on the picture, could this not in fact be in aid of widescreen composition? Why did these sort of lenses become readily available post-53?

Regardless, composing some of the film 1.37:1 and some of the film 1.85:1 is not the same thing as "protecting for widescreen". I understand your reasoning for why some scenes may look better at different ratios, but I have to chalk this up to a personal preference rather than any intent from the filmmakers. Surely the idea is ridiculous? Why compose some of the film one way, and some of it another? This would result in both the theatrical screenings and later TV showings to be compromised in different ways.

[EddieLarkin]

I understand what you mean when you say a longer lens can allow for a different sort of composure to what we see in pre-53 Academy, and that explains why Academy might look different post-53.

But then you go on to describe separate scenes, and how the mise en scene is better in varying aspect ratios depending on the scenes. Doesn't this mean, that for instance, the 1.37:1 version of the Quinlan final chase is compromised?

By the way, you don't have to make concessions to me for using terms like mise en scene. I was lurking and posting here before I had an account on HTF. On this matter my opinion obviously lies more in line with the typical HTF poster, but that doesn't mean I am part of some HTF invasion force

[Moe Dickstein]

Eddie shhh about our secret HTF invasion plans!

[Kirkinson]

Eddie, just so you have this for the future, to avoid confusion: an 18.5mm would generally be referred to as a "wide" lens -- in fact, for 35mm film, an 18.5mm lens would be considered ultra-wide. A "long" lens would have a higher number, like 85mm and beyond (telephoto lenses and such). Anything in the middle -- say, 40mm to 70mm -- is usually called a "normal lens" because in theory lenses in this range correspond most closely to a human being's field of vision.

EDIT: And David, on that note, can you point me to a resource that talks about Welles & Metty's lens choices for Touch of Evil? I'm curious because a lens having a wider focal length doesn't necessarily correspond to its ability to take in more light. In fact lenses in the normal range tend to have better exposure, and if you're doing complicated camera movement and you have a lot of information in your frame, you wouldn't necessarily want to have your aperture set to its lowest stop because it would compromise your depth of field and make it more difficult to keep everything in focus (less so with an ultra-wide, but still). Not that the likes of Welles and Metty weren't up to the challenge, of course...

[EddieLarkin]

Your clarification is very much appreciated, thank you.

[Kirkinson]

Thanks very much, David! Looks like the library here has Cowie's book, so I'll pick it up next time I pass through.

[Roger Ryan]

I no longer buy the theory that Welles composed ToE for Academy and "protected" for 1.85:1. I still think it's a valid way to watch the film, unique from other examples in that Welles spoke out against widescreen and rarely used it again (and certainly never used 'Scope).

Actually, Welles shot nearly all his subsequent films in widescreen with the exception of the projects intended for television and sections of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND (which was meant to show a mixture of aspect ratios). THE TRIAL and CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT are even hard-matted somewhere between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. This is one of the reasons I believe a 1.85:1 TOUCH OF EVIL is acceptable; Welles was aware this is what the marketplace demanded and followed in suite.

The use of wide lenses is a Welles trademark going back to KANE; he preferred more depth of field than the shallower focal lengths found with longer lenses. By the way, much of the talk regarding "coating" the lenses in KANE or using special lenses that allowed more light was just made up for publicity purposes to avoid revealing that a number of the deep focus shots were achieved using superimposition.

[EddieLarkin]

You're right. I totally forgot about The Trial, and figured F for Fake was 1.33:1 but I've just checked my DVD and it's 1.66:1 too!

Very interesting.

[Moe Dickstein]

Hard to judge framing on any multiple gen PD release. Zoomboxing can become a major factor there.

[Moe Dickstein]

and who knows which generation introduced the crop, or each might have had a different one.

I still remember looking at awful PD Metropolis copies and now looking at either BD version is just an amazing night and day experience. I have to want something really bad to get those sort of releases these days

[Fred Holywell]

Welles' "The Immortal Story" (made in 1966 for French TV, but not shown until two years later) was released on DVD by Madman in 2010. The disc features the 48 minute, French language version (w/English subtitles), as well as the 60 minute, English language one. The two editions have slightly different color grading, as well as different aspect ratios and alternate cropping: the French is at 1.78:1, while the English is approximately 1.66:1.

French (1.78:1)


English (1.66:1)


Combined (1.37:1)


Additional Screencaps

[Kirkinson]

Wow, that's a pretty huge difference. Has anyone watched the version Criterion put on Hulu to compare? If they're working on a DVD/BD release one hopes they'll actually consult Willy Kurant (and that he has a good memory). He supervised their transfer of Masculin féminin, so there's a relationship there already.