Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Imitation of Life (1959) 1.66 or 1.85

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Imitation of Life (1959) 1.66 or 1.85

Author

Topic: Imitation of Life (1959) 1.66 or 1.85

Joe Beres
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 606
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-03-2001 03:59 PM

I'm hoping that someone out there can help me on this one. I am showing a print of Imitation of Life, the 1959 version, this evening. The reels are marked 1.66, but that seems like an odd aspect ratio for an american film. I would tend to think that the film would be 1.85, but maybe there is something in the history of widescreen cinema that I am not aware of. 1.85 was used by this point, but was 1.66 used for some reason? If so, do you know why, or if it was used very widely in the US? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-03-2001 10:31 PM

I'm not sure when flat projection was standardized to 1.85 in the U.S., but 1.66, 1.75 and 1.85 were all used by various studios in the fifties.

According to the book Widescreen Cinema by John Colton, "Paramount, Republic and RKO opted for 1.66:1; M-G-M for 1.75:1; Warners, Universal, and Columbia for 1.85:1. In April 1953 Paramount released Shane, suggesting that it be projected at 1.66:1."

| IP: Logged

Joe Beres
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 606
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-03-2001 11:24 PM

Paul, that is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I am going to look for that book. I ended up running the film in 1.66, opting to show more just in case. Most of the film might have looked better in 1.85, but there were shots that looked perfect in 1.66. Thanks again, Paul.

| IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 12-04-2001 09:09 AM

One thing to be aware of, especially in the early stages of "widescreen" is the original cinematography may not have been composed for widescreen. Even though Paramount recommended projecting SHANE at 1.66:1, it was photographed not with that aspect ratio in mind, but with the traditional 1.37:1. See Early Evolution from Academy to Wide Screen Ratios.

Another example is INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, which was photographed at 1.37:1 but converted to Superscope for release.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 12-05-2001 05:00 AM

If anyone is trying to get hold of 'Widescreen Cinema' then (just to be really pedantic and annoy you all) it's by John Belton, not Colton, and was published by Harvard UP in 1992. Dunno if it's still in print. Another useful book for describing changes in shooting and exhibition practices is Barry Salt, 'Film Style and Technology' (London, Starword, 1991).

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.