Bad Guys Win Again
Four days ago I noted that a press release about Warner Home Video’s upcoming release of a 3D Bluray of Alfred Hitchcock‘s Dial M for Murder (streeting on 10.9) didn’t say if the aspect ratio will be “Furmanek-ed at 1.85, or if WHV will go with the 1.33 or 1.37 aspect ratio that audiences have been watching on TVs and DVDs and in revival houses for the last 55 years or so…I’m guessing it’ll be the former.”
Well, I rented a high-def version of Dial M on iTunes last night, and it’s 1.85, all right. Or 1.78. That pretty much makes it official, if you ask me — the Furmanek forces are calling the shots, and HE’s “boxy is beautiful” and “let the image breathe with more head space” philosophy has been discounted. And as for Robert Harris‘s suggestion that this superb 1954 murder thriller would probably look best at 1.66….naaaah!
Eff you very much, guys. I guess I’m what you might call a sore loser, huh? If there was such a thing as a French underground fighting the 1.85 fascists, I would join up today.
NIce. The PROPER 1.85:1 aspect ratio is the only way to go, not the open matte version that was never shown theatrically. Props to WB for getting it correct.
Mr. Wells? The ASPCA on line 2. They’re calling about that dead horse you’ve been beating.
Wouldn’t 1.66 leave a lot of black space on an HDTV, which would leave consumers confused and feeling ripped off?
I think that will always trump what the director wanted, or what experts think.
Wells to Mizerock: Exactly.
Dial W For Wahhhhhmbulance
Does anyone have the skinny one what aspect ratio NaturalVision was show in?
As this is the 3D version, that would in fact be the most “accurate” one, although that version was not actually released apparently due to the loss of interest in 3D by the time of it’s release and not seen for 26 years.
Looking over the history, there doesn’t seem to be any one “correct” answer to this. From what I’ve been able to gleam from online sources, Hitchcock shot this for the intended 3D release and that would have been closer to 1:85 than 1.33.
Sine Jeff probably missed it, here’s a post I made in that other thread regarding Dial M:
Here’s an article about 3-D myths by Mr Furmanek, number 9 concerns Dial M:
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths
Also, interesting excerpts from an interview with Hitchcock by the NY Times shortly after the completion of the film. First time I’ve ever read that he threw away the first few days of shooting until coming to terms with the third dimension:
http://bit.ly/LIFBHR
Also, Mr. Harris’ impression that 1.66 is preferable was later modified to agree with a 1.85 presentation (or, more likely, 1.78 as per Warner video policy) after he researched and found out that the full frame DVD that Jeff approves of was zoomed-in (or “field enlarged”).
The only thing I can compare Jeff’s aspect ratio mania to are creationists, birthers, global warming deniers, anti-vaccine nuts and far acceptance activists. No amount of evidence will penetrate the bubble.
Deal with it. WB got it right.
Also, there’s the matter that this transfer was most likely prepared well before Mr. Furmanek completed his research project, so to lay this at his feet a priori is…grotesque, ad hominem, and so on.
I’ll say it right now, just to get it over with: fuck “headroom.”
Every time Wells yammers on about how movies used to look on TV, I always image him as a young Martin Tupper, lying in front of the idiot box, day and night, watching hour after hour after hour of TV in late ’50s suburbia.
Maybe the studios can come from old 16mm TV prints with cue marks at every scene change and splices in the dissolves…just like these used to look on TV. Why stop at this whole 1.33 crap.
it sure was nice of Wells to choose a frame that completely and unequivocally demonstrates how lousy this would look at 1.33:1, I dare you to pile more space on Milland’s head there without looking totally ridiculous
I’ve been telling people for years that I saw Dial M in 3-D on its original release despite the myth that few saw it this way. http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/top-10-3-d-myths proves I was right. If it was shown in 3-D in some hick town in Tennessee, it was shown that way in West Point, Georgia. Thanks for the link, Pete, and for the facts, the esteemed Mr. F.
“fuck “headroom.”"
+1.
RoyBatty: DIAL M was not filmed in Natural Vision. It was shot with the Warner Bros. All-Media camera rig which was designed and built by the studios optical department. It was intended for widescreen up to 1.85:1 and 3-D. More info can be found in paragraph 7 on this page: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/hondo-3-d-release
Floyd: Thank you for confirming another small-town playdate. I”m sure there are more that we have not documented.
By any chance, do you recall the name of the theater?
Bob Furmanek
3-D Film Archive
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com
How to lose weight fast
http://www.fastfatburningprogram.com
it sure was nice of Wells to choose a frame that completely and unequivocally demonstrates how lousy this would look at 1.33:1, I dare you to pile more space on Milland’s head there without looking totally ridiculous