Two Aspects !

[Jim Cassedy]

Last night, I ran an absolutely stunning 35mm IB-Technicolor™ copy of "Brides Of Dracula" (1960).
The print was in great shape, with only 2 or 3 splices, but I could not identify or date the film stock
other than to say it was definitely acetate. But what briefly befuddled me was that all the HEAD
leaders had the aspect ratio as "1:85", but all the TAIL leaders were marked "1:66"


TwoAspects.jpgI
Well, at least sound formats agree!

IMDB took the easy way out and completely avoids even mentioning the aspect ratio.

An A-I aspect inquiry gave the following answer: The film "The Brides Of Dracula" (1960)
was originally intended to be shown in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. However, some home video
releases and restorations have presented the film in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio as well. Some
versions, particularly in Blu-ray, offer both 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 options.

Even though 1:66 sort of made sense based on the fact that it was a European film from the 1960's,
I wound up running it at 1:85 for several reasons:
> The 1:85 lenses & plates were already on the projectors from a show last week.
> I really didn't have time to muck around with lenses & plates last night
> Bigger picture on screen with 1:85

> For moment, I briefly considered running the odd reels at 1:85, and the even reels at 1:66

[Ryan Gallagher]

I assume they were open matte? 1.85 seems like the safe option. Although it could be one of those films people are nostalgic about the ratio they most often saw it via broadcast and home video?

After having watched that perf damage episode about aspect ratio decisions in restorations, the only way to really decide would be based on the framing of the scenes, but far easier to compare in a digital restoration on a computer than on a inspection table!

[Ryan Gallagher]

Amusingly some blu-ray boxes cite 16:9, however the scream factory collectors edition houses BOTH 1.85 and 1.66 versions!!, although 1.85 appears to have been the primary non-extra content.

Scream Factory has released The Brides of Dracula as part of its Collector’s Edition series of Blu-rays, giving it a new 2K scan from the interpositive. The results are excellent: the film retains a healthy medium-bodied grain without obstruction, and the image is strong throughout with just a few bits of softness here and there. The colors pop with vibrancy – note all of the lighting throughout the castle sequences – and the architecture is preserved with crisp definition. Costume garment detail is also high. Skin tones remain consistent and while the film has relatively few dark moments, there is no visible crush. Compression is also minimal despite both 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 ratios housed on the same disc.

That 1.66:1 version of the film is part of the extras on this release, and neither version makes a whole lot of difference from a viewer’s perspective. The 1.85:1 gets the audio commentaries and the DTS-HD MA 2.0 mono track – which is strong and clear – whereas the 1.66:1 is stuck with a Dolby Digital mono track that sounds noticeably less crisp, with dialogue lacking the same punch. English subtitles are included on the 1.85:1 option as well.

https://cultsploitation.com/the-brid...cream-factory/

AppleTV, Amazon, and YT all appear to present it in 1.85 (at least based on the tailer/preview hosted). Sounds like you made the most common decision with 1.85. ;-)

[Jim Cassedy]

[QUOTE=Ryan Gallagher;n47703]I assume they were open matte? /QUOTE]
Yes, full frame open matte. I framed on the opening titles, and watched the first ½ of the
first reel, and camera composition was fine. The other reason I avoided 1:66 was that
when they put in the new screen a couple of months ago, they somehow screwed up
my masking a little. FLAT & SCOPE are fine, but the masking curtain on 1:66 sometimes
"sticks" in the track & winds up not perfectly vertical. They were supposed to come back
and fix it but haven't done so so far. It doesn't happen all the time, but I've been dealing
with enough problems this week- - I didn't want to pile another one on my plate if I didn't
have to.

If I had time, I'd run a reel for myself at 1:66, just to see how it looks, but this week I don't
have the spare time for such indulgences.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Proper 1.66 lenses are on my wish list, everyone before me has just shown a fake 1.66 that is 1.85 lensing but with the plates filed a hair taller (max the screen permits), closer to a 1.78 probably, lol. Our 1.85 does not use full screen height because of proscenium arches near the corners.

[Gordon McLeod]

It would have been shot with 1.66:1 as the safe area for hiding microphones and lights and 185:1 to not crop off heads. England waffled theatrically on the flat ratio between 1.66:1 which was continental europe and 1.85:1 the North American standard often settling on 1.75:1

[Randy Stankey]

There are two different samples of handwriting, meaning two different people wrote those labels.

While either could have been right, from their own perspective, both of them can't be right. That brings it down to how the film was originally made. Home video versions may be 1.66, 1.85 or, as you said, can be played both ways but I would try to go with the way it was when the movie was first released.

If the director shot the movie in 1.85, I'd play it that way unless there was a good reason to do it otherwise.

[Carsten Kurz]

Are you sure 1.66 was popular in Europe already in the early sixties? Sure it's open matte, and as a cinematic release, it sure was framed for 1.85 initially, so...