Interesting post. I had never taken into account the slight loss of information at the sides of films due to overscanning (an effect with which I only recently became acquainted). My comparison of the old MGM/UA tape of “Jack the Giant Killer” to the MGM/UA DVD of the film (I still have the Goodtimes release) did not involve staring at the top and bottom of the screen image; on “pause,” I simply flipped between modes to determine what was missing at the sides of the version on tape. I have watched the MGM/UA DVD on two high-end 16 x 9 monitors (both LCD, although that hardly matters), and I must say that I noticed NO shift in the aspect ratio after the opening credits (and the book does not appear at the close of the film, anyway). I won’t dispute your observation that information has, in fact, been cropped from the top and bottom, and I can see how overscanning (on a VHS tape) could result in the loss of a quotation mark or part of a letter in the case of some 1.37:1 films or, in the case of this film, the edge of the book, but surely NOT some of the writing on the left-hand page as well. In any case, this film is window-boxed on my monitor, like “Witness for the Prosecution” (also produced by Edward Small) and “Giant,” as are a few other films (whose aspect ratios are given on the IMDB as 1.66:1).
It seems that 16 x 9 monitors simply are not equipped to display all films as large as would be desirable. All films released prior to “The Robe” (1953) are naturally pillar-boxed; Cinemascope films (2.35:1 or wider) are naturally letter-boxed, while some Vista Vision films (such as “The Ten Commandments,” “Vertigo,” “North by Northwest,” and “Psycho,” to name a few) almost perfectly conform to the dimensions of 16 x 9 monitors (these films lose very little at the sides, since, I believe, a 16 x 9 monitor, when “filled,” offers a picture that is 1.78:1 – quite close to the 1.85:1 aspect ratio of the 4 films mentioned above). Why “the pillar” can’t simply be expanded a little to the left and right for the more “modest” widescreen films is beyond me. And, as I am sure you are aware, some films, like “Goldfinger,” were exhibited differently in North America than they were in Europe. Thus this Bond film was cropped at the top and bottom to make the ratio 1.85:1 in the U.S., whereas in Britain, the aspect ratio was 1.66:1. The original MGM/UA DVD offers the viewer the film as seen in North American theatres in 1964, while the blu-ray gives us the British version (and thus more information at the top and bottom). I do definitely decry the original DVD release of “The 7th Voyage of Sinbad.” Ray Harryhausen has gone on record saying that he preferred the old Academy ratio.
reply
share